Case Summary

In Tehay village under Pasraha Police Station in Khagaria district, Bihar, a Hindu man named Muskan Kumar was brutally assaulted and shot by Muslim men for having a relationship with a Muslim girl. After receiving information about the incident, a police team reached the spot and found that Muskan Kumar had sustained a gunshot injury. He was subsequently sent to Begusarai for treatment. On 4 October 2026, Muskan Kumar gave a statement to the police in which he stated that he was in a relationship with a Muslim girl. According to his statement, on 3 October 2026, family members of the girl travelled to Tehay village on a motorcycle because of the opposition to the relationship. They assaulted Muskan Kumar and then opened fire, resulting in a gunshot injury to him. On the basis of Muskan Kumar's statement, Pasraha Police Station registered Case No. 216/26 dated 4 October 2026 under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(1), 351(2), 352, 109(1), 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Section 27 of the Arms Act. Further legal action was initiated in the case. In view of the seriousness of the incident, the Superintendent of Police, Khagaria, directed the formation of a team under the leadership of the Pasraha Station House Officer. The team conducted raids at various locations and arrested two accused persons identified as Mohammed Nazim, son of Mohammed Ashiq, a resident of Tehay under Pasraha Police Station, Khagaria, and Mohammed Shahzad, son of Meyjo Baitha, a resident of Saidpur under Pasraha Police Station, Khagaria. One juvenile in conflict with law was also apprehended in connection with the incident. Police also recovered and seized the motorcycle used in the incident. Further legal action was being taken.

Case Images

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category selected for this case is: Men attacked for being associated with non-Hindu women. The subcategory selected is: Attacked by a non-Hindu partner/or her family. When Hindu men are in a relationship with non-Hindu women, there are cases where the man is forced to convert his religion and upon his refusal to do so, the partner or/and her family attacks the victim. Such relationships may be consensual with the religious identity of the non-Hindu woman known to the victim. Somewhere along the relationship, the non-Hindu woman or her family starts forcing/pressurizing the Hindu man to convert. In some of these cases, the association could be non-consensual as well or, the religious identity of the non-Hindu woman could be previously unknown to the Hindu victim. In such cases, the Hindu man is first forced/pressurized to change his religion by the non-Hindu woman or her family. The force/pressure could involve threats. The trigger for directing violence against the Hindu man is in these cases his refusal to comply and change his religion under threat and/or force. In other cases that have been documented, it is also seen that the Hindu partner is assaulted by the non-Hindu woman or her family simply for his relationship with the non-Hindu woman and by virtue of him following the Hindu faith and not the religion of the non-Hindu woman. In such cases, the relationship is consensual in most cases and the religion of both partners is known to the other. Often, in such cases, there is no direct force/pressure to convert either, however, the attack is a result of the Hindu man being in a relationship with the non-Hindu partner and not following her religion/following Hinduism specifically. Such cases are driven by specific religious motivations and against the religious identity of the victim and are therefore qualified as hate crimes. In this case, two primary factors establish that it was a religiously motivated hate crime. The first component that makes it worthy of being documented as a religiously motivated hate crime is the testimony of the Hindu victim himself. Muskan Kumar stated that he was in a relationship with a Muslim girl and that members of her family came to Tehay village because of their opposition to the relationship, assaulted him and opened fire, resulting in a gunshot injury. The second component is the nature of the crime itself. The Hindu man was attacked by members of the Muslim woman's family specifically because of their opposition to his relationship with her, and the perpetrators escalated the confrontation to physical assault and firing, seriously injuring him. In cases where a Hindu man is in a relationship with a Muslim woman, the family of the Muslim woman ends up assaulting or attacking the man because of their disapproval of the relationship. In such cases, the relationship is consensual, and the man and woman are with each other, knowing each other's identity fully well. Such cases are often called ‘honour- related crimes' and are seen in associations across religions, castes, economic strata, etc. In several such cases, the motivations for the violence or murder are stated and clear. For example, in some cases, the perpetrators would clearly mention what their main motivation to commit the crime was, whether it was because the partner was economically weaker, from a different caste or religion. In some cases, however, the motives are not stated and/or reported. To determine whether such cases are religiously motivated hate crimes, in the absence of a clearly stated motive, one has to understand what could possibly be the main factor that the perpetrators perceive as diminishing the family’s ‘honour’ and thereby leading to the crime. For the purpose of this tracker, we would only be looking at cases where one of the determining factors of the crime is religion, which is to say that the man belongs to the Hindu faith and the woman to a non-Hindu faith. In such cases, even if the motivation is not stated, it can be said that the determining factor or at least one of the main considerations, leading to the crime would be the religious identity of the Hindu man, especially if the woman in the relationship is a Muslim. In the Islamic faith, any sort of relationship or marriage is deemed illegitimate if the non-Muslim partner does not convert to Islam. For those who practice the faith, when the Muslim woman in their family is in a relationship or marriage with a Hindu man without the man converting to Islam, the difference in religions followed becomes the main point of disapproval for the family of the Muslim woman. Because of the ingrained element of religious supremacy in Islam, even if the motivations are not explicit, it can reasonably be concluded as one of the determining factors of the assault committed by the Muslim family against the Hindu man. In this case, the attack on Muskan Kumar is an instance of a hate crime targeting a Hindu man for being in a relationship with a Muslim woman. The couple were in a consensual relationship, but the Hindu man was subsequently attacked by members of the Muslim girl's family. The family directly targeted the Hindu man in the context of his relationship with the Muslim woman, highlighting the communal angle and suggesting that Muskan Kumar was targeted because of his Hindu identity and his relationship with a Muslim woman. The incident also reflected a broader pattern in which Hindu men in relationships with Muslim women are treated as religious transgressors and subjected to intimidation or violence. Such hostility is often reinforced by the so-called ‘Bhagwa Love Trap’ conspiracy theory, which falsely portrays Hindu men who enter relationships with Muslim women as part of a supposed organised effort to target Muslim women. This narrative vilifies Hindu men and is routinely used to justify policing consensual interfaith relationships and attacking Hindu men involved in them Such incidents, where Hindu men are attacked by members of a Muslim woman's family because of their relationship, are rooted in religious animosity and disapproval of the Hindu man's relationship with the Muslim woman. In this case, that religious dimension was central to the circumstances leading to the assault and shooting of Muskan Kumar. Therefore, this case warrants inclusion in the hate crime database.