Nashik Sessions Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail of Nida Ejaz Khan in TCS BPO Harassment and Coercion Case

May 2, 2026 : A sessions court in Nashik has rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Nida Ejaz Khan, an accused in the Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) Nashik BPO sexual harassment and alleged religious coercion case.

Additional Sessions Judge KG Joshi declined to grant pre-arrest protection, leaving Khan open to custodial action. The court had earlier heard detailed submissions on April 27 in in-camera proceedings from the Special Investigation Team (SIT) represented by the special public prosecutor, and defence counsel Advocate Baba Sayyed.

Khan had sought anticipatory bail citing her pregnancy and the delay in registration of the FIR as mitigating factors. Her earlier plea for interim protection from arrest had also been rejected on April 20.

The case stems from multiple FIRs registered at Deolali and Mumbai Naka police stations, invoking allegations of sexual harassment, stalking, criminal intimidation, workplace misconduct, and acts purportedly aimed at influencing religious beliefs. Eight individuals, including senior employees and an operations manager, have been named as accused.

According to the SIT, the accused were involved in conduct including harassment of women employees, intimidation, public humiliation, adverse performance evaluations, and remarks allegedly hurting religious sentiments. The investigation also points to inducement and coercive attempts to alter the complainant’s religious practices.

Khan remains the only accused yet to be arrested. She is also accused of making derogatory remarks concerning Hindu deities.

During the hearing, the defence argued that Maharashtra does not have a specific law criminalising forced religious conversion and contended that the prosecution had not clearly invoked provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It was also submitted that multiple FIRs arising from the same set of facts should be consolidated in line with established legal principles.

Opposing the plea, the prosecution argued that the case involves a broader criminal conspiracy. It relied on case records and police diaries to claim that the complainant, described as belonging to a vulnerable social group, was subjected to inducements such as exposure to religious material and promises of overseas opportunities to influence her beliefs.

After considering the submissions and material on record, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application. A detailed order is awaited.