TCS Nashik case: Maharashtra court denies woman staffer interim protection against arrest

NASHIK: A sessions court at Nashik Road on Monday denied an ad-interim protection against arrest to the TCS woman employee whom the Nashik police are searching for in a case of sexual exploitation and ‘religious harassment' that also involves two male co-accused.

Additional sessions judge Kedar Joshi posted for April 27 the hearing of the woman employee's anticipatory bail plea while asking the investigating officer and the complainant to file their written submissions on the anticipatory bail plea.



The main accused in this case registered on March 26 with the Deolali Camp police station, is facing charges of hiding his marital status and sexually exploiting the complainant, a co-worker, on the promise of marrying her. He held the position of a team lead in the TCS Nashik office. His colleague, a co-accused, is facing charges of sexually harassing the complainant in the office lobby and other places.

The woman employee is named the third accused, who is facing charges of making comments hurting religious sentiments of the complainant, and her whereabouts are not known till date. On April 18, she filed an anticipatory bail application and as an interim relief had sought protection against arrest till her plea was finally decided, considering that she is pregnant and needs medical assistance. The sessions court denied such protection on Monday.

The police have invoked charges under sections 69 (sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means or a false promise to marry), 75 (sexual harassment) 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against the three accused in this case registered on March 26 with the Deolali Camp police station.

Apart from this, the police have also invoked charges under sections 3(1)(W) (I) and (II), which refer to sexual harassment of SC/ST women by non-SC/ST individuals involving non-consensual touching and acts/gestures of a sexual nature; 3(2)(V) and (Va) i.e. non-SC/ST member committing an offence under the BNS punishable with not less than 10 yrs of imprisonment; and 3(1)(S) i.e. atrocities like forced consumption of inedible substances, dumping waste, sexual harassment, and humiliation in public view committed by non-SC/ST member against an SC/ST individual.

Advocate Rahul Kasliwal, representing the woman employee, told reporters after the day's proceedings, "We brought to the court's notice our client's medical report, citing her pregnancy as one of the grounds for the ad interim protection. We also submitted that the provisions under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were added a few days after the initial complaint, as an afterthought to deny bail relief to our client. Section 18 of this Act puts a bar on such relief."

Kasliwal said, "Referring to Section 299 of BNS, we submitted that a casual conversation on religion cannot be considered as an act intended to outrage religious feelings.The FIR nowhere makes out any case of religious harassment against our client and we believed she has been arraigned in the matter merely because she is a friend of the main accused."

Public prosecutor Kiran Bendbhar opposed the ad interim relief by arguing that the matter was related to sexual assault on a woman and also charges under the Atrocity Act. She said the accused should not be granted relief without hearing the investigating officer and the complainant.

Adv Milind Murkute, representing the complainant, said, "The court has allowed us to make a written submission and we shall file the same by the next hearing on April 27."
Get real-time updates and result insights on the UP Board Result 2026, UP Board 10th Result 2026 and UP Board 12th Result 2026