A Nashik court recently denied bail to Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) executive Ashwini Chainani in the workplace sexual harassment and religious conversion case. [Ashwini Chainani v. State of Maharashtra & Ors]
Additional Sessions Judge VV Kathare noted that despite being part of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) (POSH) Act, 2013, Chainani failed to assist the complainant in making a complaint.
“Chainani did not prevent the co-accused by taking appropriate action against them and waited till the crisis occurred. Her silence and insensitivity had endorsed the acts of the accused. She turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to what was happening in front of her,” the Court said.
It held that there was prima facie material to show abetment by Chainani and said her release at this stage could lead to witness intimidation and tampering of evidence.
The case concerns allegations that several accused persons sexually harassed women employees at TCS and attempted religious conversion. Eight persons (six men and two women) including an operations manager have been named in multiple FIRs registered at Deolali and Mumbai Naka police stations.
The complaints include allegations of sexual harassment, outraging religious sentiments, threats, public humiliation, and adverse workplace reports, as well as sexually coloured remarks directed at women employees.
According to the prosecution, the complainant was subjected to repeated sexual harassment by her team leaders Raza Memon and Shahrukh. The allegations included lewd remarks, intrusive questions about her marital life and inappropriate conduct at the workplace.
The Court recorded that the office atmosphere had allegedly become so hostile that the complainant resigned in March 2026 shortly before the FIR was registered.
Judge Kathare underscored that members of Internal Committees under the POSH Act have a statutory duty to assist women in filing complaints of sexual harassment. The court found that Chainani failed to discharge this obligation.
“On the contrary, the act of Chainani would reveal that she had blamed the informant for being in highlight and ask her to let go of the accused,” the Court said.
Chainani argued that arrest procedures were not properly followed and that she was given very short notice before being taken into custody.
However, the Court accepted the prosecution’s submission that she had not been cooperating with the investigation and that there was a possibility of her absconding.
The bail plea was accordingly rejected.
[Read Order]