Nashik: In a significant development in the ongoing legal proceedings surrounding the Nashik Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) BPO controversy, the Nashik Sessions Court has denied interim protection from arrest to Nida Ejaz Khan, a key accused in a case involving allegations of sexual harassment and religious coercion.
District Judge K.G. Joshi, presiding over the Additional District Court at Nashik Road, delivered the decision on Monday, April 20, 2026. While the court did not grant the immediate relief sought by Khan, it deferred the final hearing of her anticipatory bail application to April 27, 2026, to allow all parties to submit their formal responses.
The case, which has drawn national attention, involves serious accusations that multiple employees at a TCS-linked BPO facility in Nashik engaged in a systematic operation targeting young female staff members for harassment and attempted religious conversion. According to investigative reports, the group is alleged to have run a “gang-like” operation specifically targeting women aged 18 to 25. The allegations came to light following a reported sting operation in which police personnel allegedly posed as housekeeping staff to gather evidence against the accused.
Consequently, a total of nine First Information Reports (FIRs) have been registered—eight at the Mumbai Naka Police Station and one at the Deolali Camp Police Station—detailing incidents of misconduct occurring over a period of nearly four years.
Nida Khan, whom investigators initially labelled as the “mastermind” and erroneously identified as an HR manager, was later clarified by both her legal team and company records to be a process associate or telecaller. She is currently the only individual among the eight named accused who has not been arrested, as the Special Investigation Team (SIT) continues its search for her.
Her counsel, Advocates Baba Sayyad and Rahul Kasliwal, moved the anticipatory bail application on April 18, arguing that Khan has been falsely implicated in the matter. Sayyad maintained that the FIR naming his client does not contain specific allegations of forceful religious conversion but rather centres on charges of hurting religious sentiments through derogatory references to Hindu deities.
A primary ground raised in Khan’s plea for pre-arrest protection is her medical condition; her counsel informed the court that she is currently two months pregnant. Furthermore, the defence highlighted that the charges invoked against her attract a maximum punishment of less than seven years, a factor they argued should weigh in favour of granting bail. They also pointed to a delay in the registration of the FIRs and suggested that the prosecution’s case might be politically motivated.
Khan’s family has previously denied that she was absconding, stating that she had moved to Mumbai following her marriage in 2025 and was staying at home due to her pregnancy. However, investigators noted that when they attempted to locate her at her reported residence, they found the home locked and both her phones switched off.
During the hearing on Monday, Advocate Milind Kurkute, representing the original complainant, requested the court for an opportunity to file a written response before any decision on interim relief was made. Kurkute stated that the victim’s “written say” must be placed on record to ensure a fair hearing for both parties. The court accepted this request and scheduled the next hearing for April 27 to consider the submissions of both the complainant and the investigating agency.
The scope of the investigation has significantly expanded, with police officials recovering approximately 78 “suspicious” call records, emails, and chat exchanges among the accused. Investigators have also identified potential financial transactions that are currently under scrutiny.
The charges in the case invoke several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 69, 75, and 299 (insulting religious beliefs). Complainants have alleged that they were subjected to inappropriate physical contact, sexually coloured remarks, and coercion, including threats of increased workloads if they did not comply with the demands of the accused.
In addition to the criminal proceedings, the National Commission for Women (NCW) has initiated a suo motu inquiry into the workplace environment at the Nashik facility. A four-member fact-finding committee, comprising retired Bombay High Court judge Justice Sadhna Jadhav, former IPS officer B.K. Sinha, Advocate Monika Arora, and senior NCW coordinator Lilabati, has been tasked with conducting an on-ground inquiry.
Simultaneously, a separate application has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to treat “deceitful religious conversion” as a serious threat to national integration, specifically citing the Nashik case as a matter that has “shaken the conscience of citizens.”
Appearance:
For the petitioners: Advocates Baba Sayyad and Rahul Kasliwal
For the respondents: Advocate Milind Kurkute (for the complainant)
Case Title:
Nida Ejaz Khan v. State of Maharashtra (TCS Nashik Case)
