FRESH FIR CLOUDS ANKITA BHANDARI PROBE AS ACTRESS URMILA SANAWAR FACES ARREST AND NEW DEFAMATION ALLEGATIONS

October 26, 2026

Television actress Urmila Sanawar has become the focus of fresh legal controversy in Uttarakhand after a new first information report (FIR) was registered against her in Dehradun, just as she was expected to appear before a court in connection with the investigation into the 2022 murder of receptionist Ankita Bhandari. The latest case follows her arrest in Uttar Pradesh’s Saharanpur over a separate complaint concerning alleged objectionable and defamatory social media posts.

The fresh FIR was registered on Sunday night after a Dehradun resident, identified as Sagar, lodged a complaint accusing Sanawar of making allegedly defamatory and inappropriate statements about Sikkim Governor Dushyant Kumar Gautam, Bharatiya Janata Party national general secretary B. L. Santosh and others. The allegations were reportedly made in connection with the controversy surrounding Ankita Bhandari’s murder and circulated through videos on social media and news platforms.

According to the complaint, Sanawar allegedly made statements that the complainant described as false, malicious and damaging to the reputations of the individuals concerned. The complaint also alleged that the circulation of the videos could provoke public outrage, create social discord and disturb public order. These are allegations contained in the complaint and have not, merely by virtue of the FIR, been established in court.

The case was registered at Kotwali Nagar police station in Dehradun under Sections 79, 352, 353 and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The provisions cited concern, among other matters, acts or words insulting a woman’s modesty, intentional insult intended to provoke a breach of peace, certain statements capable of causing public mischief, and criminal defamation.

The development came a day after Haridwar police arrested Sanawar from her residence in Saharanpur in connection with a separate complaint filed by Deepika Rathore, daughter of former Uttarakhand BJP legislator Suresh Rathore. That complaint alleged that Sanawar had circulated objectionable and defamatory remarks against the complainant and her family on social media.

The earlier complaint also accused Sanawar of making WhatsApp calls demanding the transfer of property into her name, seeking Rs 5 crore and threatening to kill the complainant. Police registered a separate case under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 4 and 10 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. Sanawar’s arrest was carried out in connection with that case, not the newly registered Dehradun FIR.

The timing of the developments has drawn attention because Sanawar had been expected to appear before a special CBI court in Dehradun on Monday in connection with the investigation into Ankita Bhandari’s murder. On October 23, Sanawar and former MLA Suresh Rathore appeared before the court and gave their consent to proposed narco-analysis and polygraph tests. The court was expected to consider the matter further on October 26 before issuing a final order concerning the proposed examinations.

The Central Bureau of Investigation is examining a purported audio recording that has circulated in connection with allegations about the possible involvement of a powerful person, referred to publicly as a “VIP”, in the circumstances surrounding Ankita’s murder. Sanawar has claimed that the recording and related information warrant further investigation. The CBI has been looking into the authenticity and relevance of the material.

Ankita Bhandari, a 19-year-old receptionist at Vanantra Resort in Uttarakhand, was murdered in September 2022. Resort owner Pulkit Arya and two employees were convicted in the case and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case attracted widespread public attention and prompted demands for accountability and a thorough investigation into the circumstances of her death.

The controversy resurfaced after Sanawar made allegations about a purported VIP connection to the crime. Dushyant Kumar Gautam, who has been named in allegations circulated publicly, has denied involvement. He has also pursued legal action over claims linking him to the murder. No allegation against an individual should be treated as proof of criminal responsibility without supporting evidence and due legal process.

The case has acquired additional political significance following Gautam’s appointment as governor of Sikkim. Opposition leaders and activists have raised questions about the allegations and called for scrutiny, while the legal disputes surrounding the statements and recordings have continued. The CBI’s examination of the material remains central to determining whether it contains credible evidence relevant to the investigation.

Sanawar has also claimed to be Suresh Rathore’s wife, a claim he has repeatedly denied. Their disputed relationship has featured in the controversy surrounding the audio recording and the allegations about the alleged VIP. The separate criminal complaints against Sanawar concern the statements and conduct alleged by the respective complainants and must be assessed independently of the murder investigation.

The registration of a fresh FIR does not determine whether the allegations against Sanawar are true, just as the allegations she has made in connection with Ankita’s death do not establish the guilt of anyone she has named. Each matter requires investigation on its own evidence, with the rights of the complainants and the accused protected under the law.

As the proceedings continue, the immediate questions concern the status of Sanawar’s court appearance, the handling of the proposed tests and the investigation into the viral audio recording. The broader demand from Ankita’s family and other campaigners remains that all credible evidence be examined and that any additional criminal responsibility, if established, be addressed through lawful proceedings.

The latest FIR adds another layer to an already complex case involving a convicted murder, disputed allegations, political controversy and separate defamation complaints. Its eventual significance will depend on the evidence gathered by investigators and the findings reached through the judicial process.