Ankita Bhandari case: Urmila Sanawar who raised ‘VIP’ allegation faces eight FIRs

The September 2022 murder is back in the news after the appointment as Sikkim Governor of BJP leader Dushyant Kumar Gautam, whom Sanawar has identified as the “VIP” being talked about in the recordings released by her. Earlier, giving into Opposition pressure in an election year, the BJP government agreed to a CBI probe, though three people have been convicted for Bhandari’s murder, including the owner of a resort where she had joined as a receptionist days earlier.

The allegations against Sanawar, who has acted in a few films, include extortion, death threats, circulation of “objectionable” photographs, remarks hurting religious sentiments, and defamation over the circulation of the recordings. The first of these FIRs was filed soon after she put out the recordings in December 2025.

She was arrested on Sunday on a complaint by Deepika Rathore, the daughter of former BJP MLA Suresh Rathore. Sanawar has claimed that Rathore was the man she was discussing the “VIP” in the recordings with. She also claims to be married to Rathore, accuses him of sexual harassment and says he threatened to release “objectionable” videos of her.

Rathore has denied being married to Sanawar and refuted allegations of sexual harassment. He has also accused Sanawar of trying to blackmail him.

The eight FIRs:

October 25, 2026

An FIR was registered at Kotwali Nagar Police Station in Dehradun, based on a complaint by Sagar, a resident of Moti Bazaar in Dehradun, over alleged defamatory remarks made by Sanawar, outside the CBI court in Dehradun, against Gautam, BJP national general secretary B L Santhosh, former district panchayat member Aarti Gaur and others.

Sagar said the remarks were objectionable, indecent and defamatory, and that their circulation on social media had damaged the reputations of those named and potentially disturbed public peace.

Story continues below this ad

The FIR was filed under BNS Sections relating to acts insulting a woman’s modesty, intentional insult, certain false or misleading statements, and criminal defamation.

October 24, 2026

On the night of October 24, Deepika Rathore lodged a complaint at Ranipur Police Station, Haridwar, against Sanawar, accusing her of posting obscene, objectionable and defamatory remarks about her and her family on social media. She also accused Sanawar of making WhatsApp calls demanding Rs 5 crore and seeking the transfer of Ravidas Dham property in her name, threatening that she would kill Rathore family members and circulate more photographs online otherwise.

An FIR was registered under BNS Sections relating to extortion through threats of death or grievous hurt, acts intended to insult a woman’s modesty or intrude upon her privacy, and criminal defamation, as well as under Sections of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act.

On October 25, the Haridwar Police arrested Sanawar from her residence in Govindnagar, Saharanpur, in connection with the FIR. She was remanded in judicial custody.

Story continues below this ad

Congress leaders questioned the timing of the police action, a day before Sanawar was to appear before the CBI, having consented to narco-analysis and polygraph tests as part of the Ankita case investigation.

January 5, 2026

Gautam filed a complaint at Dalanwala Police Station, Dehradun, accusing Rathore, Sanawar and unidentified individuals associated with political parties of circulating fabricated audio and video clips to damage his reputation and link him to Ankita’s murder.

The FIR invoked Sections of the Information Technology Act, along with provisions of the BNS relating to false or misleading statements, criminal defamation and conspiracy.

In an order on June 3, 2026, on petitions seeking to quash the FIRs against Sanawar, the Uttarakhand High Court did not quash Gautam’s FIR. While it did not hold that the recordings were fabricated, it said their authenticity and evidentiary value remained matters for investigation. The court proceedings also referred to voice samples and mobile phones being sent for forensic examination.

December 26, 2025

Story continues below this ad

Haridwar resident Sanchit Kumar filed a complaint at Jhabrera Police Station, accusing Sanawar and Rathore of circulating false or misleading statements about Gautam through audio clips on social media, damaging the BJP leader’s reputation and hurting the sentiments of the Ravidas community.

On June 3, 2026, the High Court quashed this FIR, observing that the allegations overlapped with Gautam’s complaint that had been filed on January 5, 2026, and that the complainant was neither the direct victim nor an affected party.

December 24, 2025

Dr Dharmendra Kumar, identified as an office-bearer of the Sant Shiromani Guru Ravidas Akhara, filed a complaint at Bahadrabad Police Station, Haridwar, over the audio clips released by Sanawar and allegedly featuring Gautam. Kumar said these claims were false and misleading and were intended to damage Gautam’s reputation and hurt the sentiments of followers of the Ravidas community. Gautam is associated with the organisation.

The High Court quashed this FIR too on June 3, 2026, on grounds similar to those in Sanchit Kumar’s case.

December 24, 2025

Story continues below this ad

Aarti Gaur, a district panchayat member from the Amroli area of Yamkeshwar constituency, filed an FIR at Nehru Colony Police Station alleging harassment and claiming she was being falsely implicated in the Ankita Bhandari case due to the release of the recordings by Sanawar.

The FIR was challenged before the Uttarakhand High Court. In its June 3, 2026, order, the court declined to quash it.

March 2025

Deepika Rathore filed a complaint against Sanawar and another man, whose identity could not be independently verified, alleging that objectionable photographs of her had been circulated online and that an attempt had been made to extort money from her.

May 2025

An FIR was filed against Sanawar for allegedly posting objectionable comments about Lord Valmiki, hurting the sentiments of members of the Valmiki community. (The name of the complainant was not mentioned.)