Advocate Sarita Khanchandani Suicide Case: Bombay HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail Plea Of Raj Chandwani, Cites Prima Facie Harassment

Mumbai, Dec 23: The Bombay High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by advocate Raj Chandwani, whose name has surfaced in connection with the suicide of advocate Sarita Khanchandani.

The court held that the material on record prima facie indicates mental harassment of the deceased, and therefore custodial protection could not be granted at this stage.

Court Relies On FIR And Suicide Note To Infer Abetment

Justice N.R. Borkar, while dismissing the plea, observed that the First Information Report (FIR), along with other material placed before the court, including the suicide note allegedly left by the deceased, disclosed sufficient grounds to infer abetment.

“At this stage, it cannot be said that there is no material against the applicant to infer abetment,” the court noted, adding that considering the nature of the crime, it was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

Suicide Note Names Advocate Chandwani And Others

In its order, the court reproduced the contents of the suicide note, in which the deceased named several individuals, including advocate Raj Chandwani, as allegedly responsible for her death. The note stated that she had been falsely implicated and mentally tortured, which pushed her to the extent of taking her own life.

The court further noted that the material on record suggested that the accused had filed multiple criminal cases against the deceased, which caused her severe mental distress.

Defence Claims No Proximate Act Or Specific Allegation

Advocate Chandwani had approached the High Court after his anticipatory bail application was rejected by a lower court on September 13. Seeking protection from arrest, Chandwani argued through his counsel that his name was vaguely mentioned in the suicide note without any specific allegations.

It was contended that he had no role in the alleged suicide and that the sequence of events pointed to disputes between the deceased and other co-accused on August 27, 2025, rather than any act attributable to him.

Applicant Says Custodial Interrogation Unnecessary

The defence further submitted that there was no material to show any positive or proximate act by Chandwani that could have driven the deceased to commit suicide. Emphasising that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the applicant expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation and sought anticipatory bail.

Husband Alleges False Cases And Sustained Harassment

The plea, however, was strongly opposed by advocate Purushottam Khanchandani, husband of the deceased and the first informant in the case. He submitted that Chandwani had lodged multiple false and frivolous complaints against the deceased and her family across various forums with the intention of defaming and harassing her.

It was further alleged that Chandwani had also filed complaints with the Limca Book of Records in an attempt to discredit the deceased and her daughter.

Background Of Alleged Threats And Criminal History Raised

Khanchandani highlighted that the deceased was a well-known social activist who ran an NGO focused on environmental causes and was recognised by the Limca Book of Records as a national record holder for organising the ‘Largest No-Honking Rally’.

He also alleged that on October 7, 2022, Chandwani had assaulted him within the premises of the Kalyan court and had threatened to kill him. It was further submitted that the accused was also allegedly involved in multiple criminal cases, which he had failed to disclose.

Deceased Known As ‘Iron Lady Of Ulhasnagar’

Advocate Sarita Khanchandani, popularly known as the “Iron Lady of Ulhasnagar” for her fearless legal activism on behalf of marginalised communities and environmental causes, was found dead by suicide on August 29.

Her suicide note reportedly named Giya Gopalani, Ulhas Falke, Shivani Falke, advocate Raj Chandwani, and UBT leader Dhananjay Bodare as persons allegedly responsible for pushing her to the brink.

Also Watch:

Interim Protection Granted To Approach Supreme Court

The High Court clarified that its observations were limited to the consideration of the anticipatory bail plea and would not influence the merits of the case during trial.

The High Court, meanwhile, also maintained that since the accused wanted to approach the Supreme Court, he was granted interim protection against arrest for a period of two weeks.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/