Minor Hindu student lured by Muslim man under false Hindu identity; drugged, sexually exploited and pressured to convert to Islam
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India 
11 August, 2026
Case Summary
A minor Hindu girl was deceived by a Muslim man, Atish Khan, who concealed his identity and befriended her under a false Hindu name. He sexually exploited her and pressured her to convert to Islam. Muslim man, identified as Atish Khan, administered intoxicating substances through food and stalked her during her school commute. The Hindu woman was also subjected to intimidation, emotional manipulation, and threats directed at her family. According to the complaint filed by the victim's mother, the incident occurred in a residential colony under the jurisdiction of Indirapuram police station in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The accused introduced himself as Aditya Saini alias Sonu, a Hindu man, while the family later discovered that his real name was Atish Khan. The friendship developed about a year earlier through school classmates and continued during the student’s daily travel to and from school.- The complainant said that the accused repeatedly followed the Hindu girl on her commute and gradually gained her trust. She stated that he gave her burgers and other food items mixed with a dry intoxicating substance, after which the student began sleeping excessively after returning home from school. This behaviour change led the family to become suspicious and to begin monitoring her activities. During their inquiry, the family revealed that the accused had concealed both his real name and religion in an effort to lure the victim. The complaint further stated that he took the victim to his residence, where she was encouraged to adopt practices associated with Islam and was asked to read religious literature related to Islam. These actions were part of an attempt to pressure her into religious conversion. After learning of the incidents, the family stopped the student from going out alone and began accompanying her to school and bringing her back home themselves. The complaint states that when the student’s father confronted Atish Khan and asked him to stay away from their daughter, the accused threatened to kill him. The complainant also stated that the accused sent two girls known to him to the family’s residence in an attempt to persuade the Hindu girl to resume contact with him. These girls emotionally pressured and manipulated her. In addition, the complaint mentions that Atish Khan’s mother contacted the student and told her that if she did not speak to her son, he would commit suicide, which the family described as emotional blackmail. The family sought assistance from members of Hindu organisations, who accompanied them to Indirapuram police station on 11 August 2026, where a formal complaint was submitted. Assistant Commissioner of Police Suryabali Maurya stated that a case had been registered on the basis of the complaint and that an investigation had been initiated.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The first primary category selected in this case is: Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. The first subcategory selected is: Man pretends to be Hindu. The tertiary category selected is: Name changed. When a non-Hindu man pretends to be a Hindu to deceive a Hindu woman into a relationship, the act is seen as triggered by malafide intentions. In some cases, the woman eventually accepts the man’s original religious identity and converts after the man’s identity is revealed. These cases could be argued as cases of religious brainwashing and a result of the pressure a woman feels after getting into a relationship with a man. The woman, it can be argued, also changed her religious identity because of the stigma she believes she might face if she chooses to walk out of a deceptive relationship. However, for the purpose of documenting hate crimes, the cases in this subcategory are limited to those where there is explicit violence aimed at religious conversion against the wishes of the victim (force-feeding beef, blackmailing with intimate videos, rape on refusal to convert, etc), or if the woman herself complains of the man’s religious deception. In such cases, it is established that the deception of the non-Hindu man had a specific aim of religious conversion or targeting of the victim due to her Hindu religious identity, therefore, making it a religiously motivated hate crime. The second subcategory selected in this case is: Blackmailed to convert When Hindu women are in a relationship with non-Hindu men, there are cases where the woman is blackmailed to convert her religion, owing to her religious identity of being a Hindu. Such relationships may be consensual with the religious identity of the non-Hindu man known to the victim, however, there could be cases where the relationship is not consensual and the non-Hindu man starts blackmailing a Hindu woman to convert her religion. In these cases, it is often seen that the Hindu woman is blackmailed with intimate photos and/or videos, threats of harm to her or her family, threats of violence etc. Such cases are driven by specific religious motivations and against the religious identity of the victim and are therefore qualified as hate crimes. The third subcategory selected in this case is: Brainwashed or groomed. The tertiary categories selected are: Family claims grooming, Rape and sexual assault/harassment and Conversion of minor. In our database, we have not added incidents where women have converted to another religion of their free will and no allegations of forced/involuntary conversion have been made. However, there are certain cases of conversion where the consent itself is a result of the brainwashing or grooming of a minor by the non-Hindu perpetrator trying to victimise a woman for her Hindu religious identity. The phenomenon of grooming points to non-Hindu perpetrators identifying their Hindu victims’ vulnerabilities and exploiting them over months and sometimes years, to extract the supposed ‘consent’ in order to convert their religion. In most cases of grooming, the victims are minors or the grooming started when the victim was a minor. In other cases of grooming, the non-Hindu perpetrator brainwashes and grooms a minor victim to extract their trust and then proceeds to rape them repeatedly with the intent of converting them to their faith. It is pertinent to understand here that when the victim is a minor, the ‘consent’ to convert or enter into a romantic relationship with an adult itself is redundant – addressed by POCSO. While every case of conversion of a minor and incidents of establishing a physical relationship with a minor by an adult is a crime, for this database, a case would be considered a hate crime only if there is a distinct religious angle to the grooming. For example, in the UK, if a Hindu minor is targeted by Pakistani grooming gangs, it would be considered a hate crime because the victims are specifically targeted owing to their non-Muslim religious identity, with the perpetrators being Muslim. In other cases, if a Hindu minor is brainwashed into entering a physical relationship with the non-Hindu adult perpetrator and the family alleges grooming/brainwashing of the minor to convert her religion, it would form a part of this database. If the victim is a Hindu adult, the case would form a part of this database only if the victim herself says that she was brainwashed/groomed to convert her religion. However, if the victim is deceased (murdered or otherwise), the case would form a part of this database if her family/friends provided testimony that the victim was brainwashed/groomed to convert her religion. Since these crimes have a distinct religious angle where the victim is being targeted owing to her Hindu religious identity, these cases are considered a hate crime. The second primary category selected is: Predatory Proselytisation. Within this, the subcategory selected is: Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. The tertiary categories selected are: Family claims grooming, Rape and sexual assault/harassment and Conversion of minor. Religious brainwashing essentially means the often subtle and forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up their religious beliefs to accept contrasting regimented ideas. Religious grooming or brainwashing also involves propaganda and manipulation. It involves the systematic effort, driven by religious malice and indoctrination, to persuade “non-believers’ to accept allegiance, command, or doctrine to and of a contrasting faith. Cases of such grooming or brainwashing are far more nuanced than direct threats, coercion, inducement and violence. In such cases, it is often seen that there is repeated, subtle and continual manipulation of the victim to induce disaffection towards their own faith and acceptance of the contrasting faith of the perpetrator. While subtle indoctrination is widely acknowledged as predatory, an element which is often understated in such conversions or the attempts at such conversion, is the role of loyalty and trust which might develop between the perpetrator and the victim. Fiduciary relationships are often abused to affect such religious conversion. For example, an educator transmitting religious doctrine of a competing faith to a Hindu student. The Hindu student is likely to accept what the teacher is transmitting owing to existence of the fiduciary relationship. The exploitation of the fiduciary relationship to religiously indoctrinate victims would also be included in this category. Since the underlying animosity towards the victim’s faith forms the basis of predatory proselytization, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. This case constitutes a religiously motivated hate crime because the victim was targeted as a minor Hindu girl and subjected to a pattern of identity concealment, deception, sexual harassment, and pressure to convert. The religious dimension of the crime is reflected by the fact that the accused concealed his religious identity, pressured her to adopt Islam, and asked her to read Islamic religious literature. A particularly significant aspect of the incident is that the accused identified the victim while she was still a minor and gradually cultivated influence over her. The relationship was built on deception from the outset, with the accused presenting himself under a false Hindu identity to gain the victim’s trust and overcome barriers that may otherwise have prevented the relationship from developing. This indicates a premeditated intent to manipulate her based on her religious background. In cases like these, the tactic of adopting a false Hindu identity to manipulate and "ensnare" a Hindu individual is not just an act of personal betrayal but can also be interpreted as an expression of disdain or disregard for Hinduism and its customs that reflects a deeper animosity towards Hindus and their beliefs. The case falls within the category of blackmail or coercive pressure connected to religious conversion because the victim was subjected to multiple forms of pressure used after the relationship was established. The victim was taken to the accused’s home, encouraged to follow another religion, asked to read religious literature, and subjected to emotional manipulation. These prove that emotional leverage and psychological pressure were used to influence the victim’s decisions regarding the relationship and religious conversion rather than any independent and voluntary change of belief. Pressuring or manipulating a Hindu individual to discard her religious faith and embrace another was a direct attack on her religious identity and dignity. It was not a matter of personal choice; it was coercion rooted in hostility towards the victim's Hindu identity. Such an attempt reflects religious animosity because the act was not simply about personal differences but about erasing the victim’s Hindu faith, making it a religiously motivated crime. It is further important to note here that the victim was a minor, which means the element of consent and genuine change of conscience was missing ab initio. Minors, due to their young age and lack of maturity, are particularly vulnerable to manipulation and coercion. They may not have the ability to fully understand the implications of converting to another religion, and the Muslim perpetrator purposely targeted and exploited this vulnerability of the victim. Since this case exemplifies the use of coercion and manipulation to achieve religious conversion, it is a blatant act of religious hate, which is why it has been documented here in the hate tracker. Additionally, the victim’s father was threatened after he intervened to protect his minor daughter and asked the accused to stay away from her. The threat was directed at a Hindu parent who was attempting to prevent further contact, exploitation, and the effort to influence his daughter’s Hindu beliefs. The father’s intervention represented an attempt to protect his daughter’s safety, autonomy, and Hindu identity. The death threat by the Muslim man was intended to intimidate him and discourage further opposition. The intimidation of a parent seeking to protect a minor is a significant aspect of the case because it indicates that resistance to the accused’s conduct was met with coercion and fear, potentially weakening the family’s ability to safeguard the victim. This incident is not presented as an isolated case but as part of a broader pattern in which Hindu women are targeted through identity concealment, grooming, emotional manipulation, and pressure for religious conversion and sexual exploitation. These actions reflect hostility towards the victim’s professed Hindu faith and an attempt to separate her from her Hindu identity. This is why such cases must be recognised and documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. The victims are not just exploited individuals; they are Hindus targeted for being Hindu. Disclaimer: The exact date on which the Hindu minor and the Muslim accused first came into contact was not specified in the available sources. However, the case was first reported by mainstream media on 12 August 2026. The tracker records incident dates based on when the crime occurred rather than when it was reported or published. In this case, 12 August 2026 has been used as the indicative incident date for documentation purposes only, based on the earliest available mainstream media report.
Victim Details
Total Victim
1
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 0
- Female 1
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 1
Age Group
- Minor 1
- Adult 0
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Complaint registered
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
