Hindu woman deceived by Muslim gym owner posing as her ‘brother’, says he sexually assaulted her and targeted her Hindu faith; 30 women similarly targeted

Case ID : 30aaac3 | Location : Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India | Date of Incident : Fri, 2 October, 2026

Case ID : 30aaac3

Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India

2 October, 2026

Hindu woman deceived by Muslim gym owner posing as her ‘brother’, says he sexually assaulted her and targeted her Hindu faith; 30 women similarly targeted

Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes

Brainwashed and/or groomed

Pattern of targeting Hindus

Hate speech against Hindus

Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith

Case Summary

In Dehradun’s Clement Town area, a Hindu woman accused Mohammad Armaan, a Muslim gym owner, of sexually assaulting her after gaining her trust by presenting himself as her sworn brother. According to her account, Armaan befriended her, had her tie a rakhi to him, and used that trust to gain access to her. He later secretly recorded private moments involving the woman and used the recordings to pressure her into unwanted physical relations. When she refused, he threatened to make the videos public. The woman also accused Armaan of making derogatory remarks about Hindu deities, including Shiva, Parvati and Sita, as well as Hindu religious texts such as the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads. In an audio recording that circulated publicly, Armaan was heard abusing the woman and making objectionable remarks about Hindu beliefs, along with threatening to release an intimate video. The conversation also contained claims about relationships between cousins being permitted in Hinduism, which the woman described as false and derogatory. According to the woman, around 30 girls were in contact with Armaan, and some were being approached under the pretext of romantic relationships. She further stated that he would befriend Hindu girls and present himself as a brother to gain their trust. Members of the Bajrang Dal received information about the matter, confronted Armaan and handed him over to the police. The police subsequently took up the complaint for further action in accordance with the law.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category selected in this case is: Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. The subcategory selected is: Brainwashed and/or groomed. The tertiary category selected is: Pattern of targeting Hindus. 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 other primary category selected in this case is: Hate speech against Hindus. The subcategory selected is: Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith. Anti-Hindu slurs and the deliberate mocking of the Hindu faith owing to religious animosity involve the usage of derogatory terms, stereotypes, or offensive references to religious practices, symbols, or figures. One of the common anti-Hindu slurs used against Hindus is “cow-worshipper” and “cow piss drinker”. The intention of using this term is to demean and mock Hindus as a group and their religious beliefs, since Hindus consider the cow holy. Additionally, some symbols and the slurs attached to them have a historical context that exacerbates the insult, hate, stereotyping, dehumanisation and oppression against Hindus. Cow worship has been used for centuries to denigrate Hindus, insult their faith and oppress Hindus specifically as a religious group. There has been overwhelming documentation about how cow slaughter has been used to persecute Hindus, with cow meat being thrown in temples and places of worship. There has also been overwhelming documentation that cow meat (beef) has been force-fed to Hindus to either forcefully convert them to Islam or denigrate their faith. Apart from cow worship, the Swastika – which holds deep religious significance for the Hindus – has also been misinterpreted and distorted to use as a slur against Hindus. Similarly, the worship of the Shivling has been used by supremacist ideologies and religions to denigrate Hindus owing to religious animosity. Such slurs and denigration stem out of inherent animosity and hate towards Hindus and their faith, therefore, it is categorised as hate speech targeted at Hindus specifically owing to their religious identity. This case contains multiple religious indicators pointing to a religious dimension in the crime against the Hindu victim. The Muslim perpetrator gained the victim’s trust before sexually exploiting and blackmailing her. The targeting of multiple Hindu women, derogatory remarks about Hindu deities and religious texts, and statements concerning Hindu religious practices further indicate that the perpetrator appeared to select and profile his victims based on their Hindu identity, using their religious background as a factor in how he approached and targeted them. Firstly, the accused presented himself as a brother to a Hindu woman. This is significant because the brother-sister relationship carries a specific religious and cultural meaning in the context of the Hindu festival of Raksha Bandhan, during which a sister traditionally ties a rakhi as a symbol of affection, trust and the brother’s protective bond. By presenting himself as her brother, he used a relationship that holds cultural and emotional significance for the Hindu woman to gain her trust. The deception therefore directly involved a Hindu religious and cultural practice rather than an ordinary personal introduction. Secondly, the woman said that approximately 30 girls were in contact with him and were being lured under the pretext of romantic relationships. This is significant because the stated pattern involved Hindu women, particularly where he was described as befriending Hindu girls and, in some instances, presenting himself as their brother. Such a pattern indicates that the conduct extended beyond one Hindu woman and involved Hindu women being approached through relationships built on concealed identity and misplaced trust. Moreover, the remarks concerning Shiva, Parvati and Sita, together with references to the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads, directly target central figures and texts within Hindu religious tradition. Shiva, Parvati and Sita hold profound religious and cultural importance for Hindus, while the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads form important parts of Hindu philosophical and scriptural traditions. Derogatory treatment of these figures and texts therefore directly denigrates beliefs, symbols, and sources of spiritual significance to Hindus, making this distinct from an ordinary interpersonal insult. Lastly, the claim that cousin marriage is permitted or sanctioned by Hinduism is misleading and misrepresents Hindu religious traditions. Presenting a contested or regionally specific marital practice as something inherently permitted by Hinduism falsely attributes that practice to Hindu religious norms. This is particularly significant when the practice is more prominently associated with Muslim communities and Islamic legal traditions, while Hindu marriage norms have historically been governed by concepts such as gotra, lineage and prohibited degrees of kinship that restrict marriage among close relatives. Attributing cousin marriage to Hinduism without acknowledging these distinctions therefore amounts to spreading misinformation about the faith and misrepresenting Hindu religious customs and principles. In the context of the other remarks concerning Hindu beliefs, deities and scriptures, the statement takes on a denigrating character by portraying Hinduism as permitting a practice that does not represent the general Hindu religious norm. Collectively, these markers show that the conduct extended beyond a private interpersonal dispute and repeatedly engaged with Hindu religious identity, cultural practices, women belonging to the Hindu community, and core Hindu beliefs and traditions. The combination of concealed religious identity, the reported pattern involving Hindu women, disparaging treatment of Hindu deities and scriptures, and assertions about what Hinduism permitted established a sustained religious dimension to the conduct. Accordingly, this case has been documented in the Hinduphobia Tracker's Hate Crime Database as an instance of religiously motivated hostility directed against Hinduism and the religious identity of the Hindu community. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incidents based on when an event occurred or when the victim's ordeal began. None of the media sources covering this case has specified the exact date the incident occurred. Therefore, for documentation purposes, we have recorded the date based on when the incident was reported in the media, 3rd October 2026. The Hinduphobia Tracker recorded the victim count as 30 in this case. Even though one woman's ordeal has been highlighted, she herself stated that approximately 30 girls were in contact with the accused and were being lured under the pretext of romantic relationships. Accordingly, the victim count has been kept at 30.