Hindu woman deceived by Muslim man posing as Hindu, drugged with "prasad", sexually assaulted, blackmailed and pressured to convert to Islam

Case ID : 30aa491 | Location : Mumbai, Maharashtra, India | Date of Incident : Fri, 10 January, 2025

Case ID : 30aa491

Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

10 January, 2025

Hindu woman deceived by Muslim man posing as Hindu, drugged with "prasad", sexually assaulted, blackmailed and pressured to convert to Islam

Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes

Man pretends to be Hindu

Name Changed

Blackmailed to convert

Forced conversion before marriage

Case Summary

In Mumbai, Maharashtra, a 20-year-old Hindu woman was deceived into a relationship by a Muslim man, Arif Sheikh, who concealed his religious identity and introduced himself using the Hindu name “Shiva Rathod”. The man drugged the victim with "prasad" infested with drugs. The woman, a telecaller at a company in Chembur, came into contact with him in January 2025. He gradually developed a relationship with her and proposed marriage while continuing to hide his actual name and Muslim identity. After the relationship developed, the accused took the Hindu woman to different places and established physical relations with her on the assurance that he would marry her. The woman later discovered that the man she knew as Shiva Rathod was actually Arif Sheikh. A dispute arose after his true identity was revealed, but the accused persuaded her to continue the relationship and made further assurances. One day, Arif took the woman to a lodge in Vashi and gave her something to consume while describing it as “prasad”, a Hindu religious offering. After consuming it, the woman lost consciousness. While she was unconscious, the accused sexually assaulted her. When she regained consciousness, she noticed blood in the room and questioned him about what had happened. He subsequently gave her a tablet and told her that it would prevent pregnancy. The woman also described another incident in which she again became unconscious while she was with the accused. These incidents formed part of the sequence of sexual exploitation that she later detailed before the police. Later, the woman was introduced to members of Arif Sheikh’s family. During this interaction, she was told that if she wanted to marry him, she would have to convert to Islam. The woman opposed the demand and refused to accept religious conversion as a condition for marriage. After the woman resisted the conversion demand and attempted to distance herself, the accused used photographs and videos to blackmail and threaten her. He pressured her to continue living with him and also issued threats against members of her family. The woman eventually tried to end contact because of his conduct, but he continued to follow, threaten and intimidate her. The continued harassment prompted the victim to approach the police. Following the woman’s complaint, Shivaji Nagar Police Station in Mumbai registered an FIR against the accused under serious charges covering the sequence of religious deception, sexual exploitation on the pretext of marriage, drugging, assault while unconscious, administration of a pregnancy-prevention tablet, pressure to convert to Islam, blackmail through photographs and videos, stalking, and threats against the woman and her family. The FIR identified the accused as Arif alias Shiva Rathod. The case covered conduct beginning from their first contact in January 2025, when he entered the Hindu woman’s life using a concealed identity, through the later revelation of his Muslim identity, conversion pressure, sexual exploitation, blackmail and continuing threats.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category selected for this case is: Crime against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. The subcategory selected for this case 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 mala fide 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 other subcategory selected 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 as 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 other subcategory selected for this case is: Forced conversion before marriage. In such cases, a non-Hindu man is in a relationship with a Hindu woman when the pressure to convert her religion begins to manifest. In such cases, typically, two patterns emerge. First, when the relationship is consensual, and the religious identity of the perpetrator is known to the Hindu woman in the relationship, however, at some point during the relationship, the non-Hindu man starts to force the victim to convert her religion and give up her Hindu religious identity. The second is when the woman gets into a marriage with the man pretending to share her faith. Later, when the truth is revealed, the man starts pressuring the woman to convert her religion and give up her religious identity. In both the situations, the methods used to force the victim to convert her religion often revolve around force-feeding beef, forcing her to wear hijab, forcing her to read the Kalma or even pressurizing the victim to do ‘Nikah’, which is marriage under Islamic law, with a prerequisite being conversion to Islam. Cases where a Hindu woman consensually converts to Islam in a relationship will be left out of the hate crime database, even though it could be argued in several cases that the conversion was a result of religious brainwashing. This case qualified as a religiously motivated hate crime because the Hindu woman was first drawn into the relationship through deliberate religious deception and was later subjected to coercion aimed at making her abandon her Hindu identity and accept Islam. The deception was therefore not incidental to the relationship. By adopting a Hindu name and concealing his Muslim identity, the accused created a false religious identity specifically capable of gaining the woman’s trust and preventing her from making an informed choice about entering an interfaith relationship. The later demand for conversion gave that initial concealment a clear religious significance. Such acts are carried out by Muslim perpetrators due to indoctrination by Islamic theology, which advocates that all non-Muslims (referred to as kafirs) are inferior and subject to subjugation unless they convert to Islam or live under Islamic rule (dhimmitude). These ideas are not mere abstractions; they manifest in actions where non-Muslims, especially Hindus in India, are seen as targets for religious domination, coercion, or humiliation. This theological framework fosters an "us versus them" mindset, in which any assertion of Hindu identity or religious freedom is seen not only as undesirable but as a threat to Islamic supremacy. As a result, perpetrators who are shaped by such teachings feel justified, even morally obligated, to harass, suppress, or violently attack Hindus, particularly when Hindus assert their religious rights or resist conversion. As a result, Muslim perpetrators invoke such doctrines to justify coercive attempts to convert non-Muslims, particularly Hindus, portraying conversion as a means of abandoning Kufr (a state of disbelief in Islam or disbelief in Islam) and attaining salvation. Such acts, therefore, are not isolated but driven by a broader ideological hostility towards Hindus as non-believers and reflect an attempt to impose religious dominance. Since this case was also not a random isolated incident of grooming of a minor but a premeditated attack motivated by bias and hatred against the Hindu community, which is a defining feature of hate crimes, this has been added to the tracker. The use of a Hindu name to conceal his actual religious identity was particularly important because it allowed the accused to present himself as someone belonging to the woman’s own religious community. Such deception exploits the victim’s trust in a shared religious identity and removes her ability to decide freely whether she wishes to enter a relationship across religious lines. When conversion pressure subsequently emerges, the concealment assumes a predatory character: the victim is first emotionally invested under one religious understanding and is then confronted with the expectation that she must surrender her own faith to preserve the relationship. This reflects a fundamental disregard for her Hindu religious identity and autonomy. The religious coercion became explicit when conversion to Islam was made a condition for marriage. The woman’s refusal to abandon Hinduism was followed by continued intimidation and pressure rather than respect for her religious choice. This is what gives the conduct its hate-driven character. The issue was no longer merely whether the relationship would continue; her continued adherence to Hinduism itself became the obstacle that had to be overcome. Using emotional dependence, fear and pressure to compel a Hindu woman to relinquish her faith demonstrates hostility towards her right to remain Hindu and reflects animosity towards the religious identity she sought to preserve. The use of photographs, videos and threats against both the woman and her family further transformed the conversion pressure into coercive control. Blackmail of this nature exploits the victim’s most intimate vulnerabilities and places her under fear of humiliation, social consequences and physical harm. When such leverage is used in a relationship where conversion has already been demanded, the purpose is not religious persuasion through conviction but submission through intimidation. The victim’s vulnerability therefore becomes a weapon to weaken her resistance to abandoning Hinduism. Another deeply significant element was the use of “prasad” as a deceptive pretext. Prasad has sacred religious meaning for Hindus and is ordinarily accepted with trust and reverence as a sanctified offering. Using that religious term to induce a Hindu woman to consume something that rendered her unconscious amounted to an exploitation of a specifically Hindu devotional concept. It weaponised her familiarity with and trust in a sacred Hindu practice for deception and abuse, adding another distinctly religious dimension to the conduct. Taken together, the false Hindu identity, exploitation of religious trust, demand that the woman convert to Islam, blackmail, threats and coercive pressure after she resisted abandoning her faith showed a sustained pattern in which her Hindu identity remained central throughout. The conduct reflected not merely interpersonal abuse but hostility, animosity and contempt towards her right to remain Hindu, while repeatedly using deception and vulnerability to undermine that religious identity. Such acts are carried out by Muslim perpetrators due to indoctrination by Islamic theology, which advocates that all non-Muslims (referred to as kafirs) are inferior and subject to subjugation unless they convert to Islam or live under Islamic rule (dhimmitude). These ideas are not mere abstractions; they manifest in actions where non-Muslims, especially Hindus in India, are seen as targets for religious domination, coercion, or humiliation. This theological framework fosters an "us versus them" mindset, in which any assertion of Hindu identity or religious freedom is seen not only as undesirable but as a threat to Islamic supremacy. As a result, perpetrators who are shaped by such teachings feel justified, even morally obligated, to harass, suppress, or violently attack Hindus, particularly when Hindus assert their religious rights or resist conversion. Such acts, therefore, are not isolated but driven by a broader ideological hostility towards Hindus as non-believers and reflect an attempt to impose religious dominance. Since this case was also not a random isolated incident of exploitation but a premeditated attack motivated by bias and hatred against the Hindu community, which is a defining feature of hate crimes, this has been added to the tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records an incident based on the date it began, rather than the date it was subsequently reported or discussed. In this case, the exact date on which the Hindu woman first came into contact with the accused and the ordeal began was not specified; the material only stated that they met in January 2025. Therefore, 11th January 2025 has been recorded as the indicative incident date for documentation purposes only. This was derived by aligning the known month and year with the reporting date.