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

Urmila Sanawar was arrested after Deepika Rathore filed a complaint at Ranipur Police Station in Haridwar on October 24, 2026. Rathore alleged that Sanawar posted obscene, objectionable and defamatory remarks about her and her family. The arrest came one day before Sanawar was due to appear before the CBI in the Ankita Bhandari case.

The FIR alleges that Sanawar made WhatsApp calls demanding Rs 5 crore and the transfer of Ravidas Dham property into her name. It also alleges threats to kill Rathore family members and circulate more photographs. The listed offences involve extortion through threats, violating a woman’s privacy or modesty, criminal defamation, and indecent representation of women.

Sanawar was arrested from her residence in Saharanpur and remanded in judicial custody. She denies the allegations in the broader dispute and has accused Rathore of sexual harassment. Rathore denies their alleged marriage and has accused Sanawar of blackmail.

FIR means First Information Report. In India, it is the police record of information about an alleged criminal offence, generally when the reported facts indicate a cognisable offence. It matters because it formally brings the allegation into the criminal justice process and gives police a basis to investigate.

An FIR can begin with a complaint from a person who claims to have been harmed or has information about the alleged offence. Police record the reported facts, identify the relevant legal provisions, and may then collect documents, question people, examine devices, or seek forensic evidence. In this case, separate complaints led to FIRs at several Uttarakhand police stations.

An FIR does not prove that the accused committed the offence. It records allegations for investigation. The article notes that the High Court treated the authenticity and evidentiary value of Sanawar’s recordings as matters still requiring investigation, while quashing another FIR because it overlapped with an earlier complaint.

The article says Urmila Sanawar is facing at least eight FIRs. Six of them were filed after she released audio and video recordings in December 2025 that indicated the involvement of a “VIP” in the Ankita Bhandari murder case. This number shows how quickly the recordings became part of several criminal complaints.

The cases allege different conduct. They include extortion, death threats, circulation of objectionable photographs, remarks hurting religious sentiments, and defamation. Dushyant Kumar Gautam filed one complaint in January 2026, alleging that fabricated recordings linked him to Ankita’s murder. Other complaints involved alleged statements about Gautam and alleged demands made to Deepika Rathore.

The legal position is not identical across all eight FIRs. The High Court quashed one complaint because it overlapped with Gautam’s FIR and the complainant was not directly affected. It did not quash Gautam’s case, leaving the recordings’ authenticity and evidentiary value for investigation.

Ankita Bhandari was murdered in September 2022. She had joined a resort as a receptionist only days before her death. The resort owner was among three people convicted for the murder. The case later became politically important after the BJP government agreed to a CBI probe following Opposition pressure in an election year.

Sanawar released audio and video recordings in December 2025 that indicated the involvement of a “VIP.” She identified BJP leader Dushyant Kumar Gautam as that person. Sanawar also claimed that Deepika Rathore’s father, Suresh Rathore, was the man she discussed in the recordings. These claims triggered several FIRs, including one alleging that fabricated clips damaged Gautam’s reputation.

The case returned to public attention after Gautam was appointed Sikkim Governor. Sanawar was due to appear before the CBI and had consented to narco-analysis and polygraph tests. The High Court said the recordings’ authenticity and evidentiary value remained matters for investigation.

If the recordings are authentic, investigators could treat them as potentially important evidence about the alleged “VIP” reference and the wider Ankita Bhandari case. They might help test witness accounts, identify speakers, and clarify what Sanawar was discussing. Their value would still depend on context, provenance, and forensic examination.

The article gives a concrete example of that process. Voice samples and mobile phones were sent for forensic examination. The Uttarakhand High Court did not decide that the recordings were fabricated. Instead, in June 2026, it said their authenticity and evidentiary value remained matters for investigation.

If the recordings are fabricated, allegations linking Gautam to the murder could weaken, while complaints alleging defamation or conspiracy could gain importance. If they are genuine, pressure for a fuller explanation of the alleged VIP’s role could increase. At present, the article establishes neither outcome; the evidence remains under investigation.

The Uttarakhand High Court quashed some FIRs because they repeated allegations already covered elsewhere or were brought by people who were not directly affected. It did not treat every complaint as legally independent. This approach prevents multiple cases from proceeding over the same alleged publication or harm.

For example, the court quashed Sanchit Kumar’s December 26, 2025 FIR on June 3, 2026. It found that his allegations overlapped with Dushyant Kumar Gautam’s January 5 complaint. It also noted that Kumar was neither the direct victim nor an affected party. By contrast, the court did not quash Gautam’s FIR against Rathore, Sanawar and unidentified political associates.

The court did not rule that the recordings were fabricated. It said their authenticity and evidentiary value needed investigation, including forensic examination of voice samples and mobile phones. Gautam’s complaint therefore remained active, while the overlapping complaint was removed.

Criminal defamation concerns allegedly damaging false statements about a person’s reputation. Extortion concerns obtaining money or property through coercion, such as a demand backed by a threat. Criminal threats concern communicated threats of harm, including death or serious injury. Circulating intimate images concerns distributing private or sexual material without permission, potentially violating privacy and laws protecting women.

The article gives examples of each allegation. Deepika Rathore accused Sanawar of demanding Rs 5 crore and Ravidas Dham property while threatening family members and further image circulation. Other FIRs allege defamatory remarks about Gautam and the circulation of objectionable photographs. The listed provisions include BNS sections and the Indecent Representation of Women Act.

These offences can overlap, but each requires different facts and legal elements. An alleged threat may support an extortion case if it seeks money or property. A defamatory statement may be separate from an image-circulation allegation. The article does not report final findings on any of these accusations.