Hindu minor girl brainwashed, kidnapped and forced towards religious conversion by Muslim youth in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

Case ID : d326f21 | Location : Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Wed, 7 January, 2026

Case ID : d326f21

Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India

7 January, 2026

Hindu minor girl brainwashed, kidnapped and forced towards religious conversion by Muslim youth in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

Predatory Proselytisation

Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination

Conversion of minor

Victim says was brainwashed/groomed

Family claims grooming

Case Summary

A minor Hindu girl, 17, faced kidnapping and forced religious conversion by a Muslim youth named Rehan in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. The incident surfaced when the girl did not return home. Her family became concerned about her whereabouts and approached the police. Her father submitted a written complaint stating that Rehan had taken his daughter away with the assistance of his brother Rizwan and another associate named Babbu. Following the complaint, the police registered a case and initiated an investigation. Officers tracked the girl's movements through electronic surveillance. Her location was identified on a train passing through Bareilly. The Government Railway Police intercepted the train at Bareilly railway station and rescued the girl. During the operation, Rehan fled from the train. Police later traced his location near the railway station, arrested him, and sent him to jail. During the investigation, police stated that Rehan had been working as a plumber in Jaipur for the past five years. Police further stated that he displayed a criminal mindset and extremist tendencies. Police stated that Rehan trapped the Hindu girl in a romantic relationship, influenced her towards Islam, and attempted to take her to Ajmer Sharif in Rajasthan with the intention of religious conversion. A case was initially registered against Rehan under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which dealt with kidnapping. After recording the girl's statement, police added sections under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. At the time of reporting, police confirmed that the Hindu girl was recovered safely and that the accused remained in judicial custody.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been documented under the selected category: Predatory proselytisation. Under this, the selected secondary category is: Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. Under this, the selected tertiary category is: Conversion of minor, Victim says brainwashed/groomed, Family claims grooming. 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 of 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 the 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 proselytisation, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. This case constitutes a religiously motivated hate crime due to the following observations: Firstly, the targeting of the victim was identity-specific. The sequence of events showed that her religious identity was not incidental but central to the offence. The conduct directed at her was not random violence or a private dispute; it involved deliberate engagement, removal from her home environment, and efforts to isolate her. Crimes that intentionally target individuals because of their religious identity meet the foundational threshold of religiously motivated hate crime. Secondly, coercion and movement were linked to religious conversion. The act of taking the girl away was accompanied by an attempt to influence her towards Islam and transport her to Ajmer Sharif, an Islamic religious destination. This demonstrated that the offence went beyond unlawful restraint or kidnapping. The movement of the victim had a clear religious objective, which transformed the crime into one motivated by hostility towards her freedom to retain her religious identity. The addition of provisions under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act reflected this element. Thirdly, deception and emotional manipulation were used as tools of religious pressure. Police stated that the woman was trapped in a romantic relationship and influenced towards Islam. This pattern showed the use of emotional dependence and trust as mechanisms to weaken resistance to conversion. Such conduct constituted targeted psychological coercion aimed at altering the victim’s religious identity, reinforcing the hate-motivated character of the offence. 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. Fourthly, the offence involved organised assistance, not an isolated act. The involvement of Rehan’s brother Rizwan and another associate named Babbu indicated coordination. The presence of multiple participants supported the conclusion that the act was planned rather than spontaneous. Organised participation in an offence that sought to remove a Hindu girl from her social and religious context strengthened the inference of religious motivation. Fifthly, the victim’s autonomy and dignity were violated because of her faith. The offence denied the girl agency over her personal beliefs and life choices. Attempting to compel a change of religion through coercion constituted an attack on her dignity as a Hindu woman. Hate crimes are defined not only by physical acts but by the symbolic harm inflicted on the victim’s identity and sense of belonging, both of which were present in this case. Sixthly, the legal response recognised the religious dimension of the offence. Police initially registered the case under kidnapping provisions and subsequently added sections related to unlawful religious conversion after recording the girl's statement. This progression demonstrated that the religious motive emerged clearly during the investigation and was not an external interpretation imposed later. Overall, the victim was deliberately targeted as a minor Hindu girl, removed from her environment, psychologically coerced, and taken towards a religious site with the intention of conversion. The offence combined identity-based targeting, coercive conversion efforts, and organised participation, all of which aligned with recognised indicators of hate crime grounded in religious hostility. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incident dates based on when the crime occurred, rather than when the media reports it. However, in this case, media reports have not specified the exact date when the victim's ordeal began. Therefore, for documentation purposes, 8th January 2026, the date of media reporting, has been selected as the indicative incident date. Also, three perpetrators have been documented based on the victim's father's written complaint. Even though there is only one person arrested, others are considered a part of the conspiracy.