Mumbai, Jan 08: Purushottam Khanchandani, husband of late advocate and activist Sarita Khanchandani, who died by suicide, has approached the Bombay High Court seeking transfer of the investigation into her death from the current police zone, citing serious apprehensions of bias and conflict of interest.
High Court seeks response from Thane police
Hearing the writ petition, the High Court has directed the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) to take instructions from the Thane Commissioner of Police on the prayers raised by the petitioner. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing on January 12.
Conflict of interest alleged
In his petition, Khanchandani has contended that the investigation by the local police, particularly Vithalwadi Police Station, suffers from a grave conflict of interest.
He pointed out that Sarita Khanchandani, an advocate, public interest litigant, environmentalist, and whistle-blower, had filed several complaints and petitions against officers of the same police station and officials of the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation.
Allowing the same officers to probe her death, he argued, defeats the principle of impartiality and renders the investigation untrustworthy.
Right to fair investigation invoked
Invoking Article 21 of the Constitution, the petition states that the right to life also includes the right to a fair and impartial investigation, particularly in cases of unnatural death. The petitioner has alleged that the probe so far has been marked by bias, delay, and opacity, thereby violating this fundamental guarantee.
Delay in FIR registration questioned
Among the key grounds raised is the delay in registering the FIR. While an Accidental Death Report (ADR) was recorded on August 28, 2025, the FIR was registered only on September 4, 2025, allegedly after repeated representations by the petitioner. This delay, the plea states, raises suspicion of manipulation and deliberate inaction to shield the accused.
Evidence handling and police conduct challenged
The petition further alleges that crucial evidence such as CCTV footage and the suicide note were not promptly secured or preserved and came to light belatedly.
It also raises serious objection to the conduct of the police in registering a non-cognisable (NC) complaint posthumously against Sarita Khanchandani, alleging that she had threatened to commit suicide.
The petitioner has described this act as “perverse and shocking”, contending that it was aimed at creating a false counter-narrative to protect the accused.
Claims of inadequate protection
Khanchandani has also claimed that despite repeated threats faced by the deceased during her lifetime, the police failed to provide her adequate protection and therefore cannot now be entrusted with probing her death.
He has further alleged that senior police officers made premature statements to the media suggesting personal reasons behind the death, without examining key evidence, thereby pre-judging the case and misleading public opinion.
Alleged nexus and demand for independent probe
The plea asserts that Sarita Khanchandani was targeted by an alleged nexus of politicians, alleged land grabbers, and civic officials whom she had challenged through her activism and litigation, and that the local police are institutionally connected to these very elements.
Continuing the investigation with the same agency, the petition argues, would embolden such vested interests and discourage other whistle-blowers and activists.
Seeking judicial intervention, Khanchandani has prayed for the transfer of the FIR to an independent investigating agency outside the Kalyan zone, preferably under the supervision of the High Court.
He has also sought directions for immediate securing and examination of all material evidence, restraint on local authorities from interfering with the probe, and full cooperation from senior police and state officials.
Supreme Court declines to extend interim protection
Meanwhile, developments have also taken place before the Supreme Court in connection with the case. Advocate Mohish Bhatia, appearing for Khanchandani, told Free Press Journal that the Supreme Court has refused to continue interim protection granted earlier to accused Raj Chandwani.
Chandwani had approached the apex court by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Bombay High Court’s order rejecting his anticipatory bail. The High Court had denied him relief after observing that the material on record disclosed a prima facie case of mental harassment warranting investigation.
Also Watch:
Advocate Purushottam Khanchandani, speaking to FPJ, said that meanwhile the counsel for the accused had orally sought interim protection from arrest until the Supreme Court hears the matter on January 13. However, the request was rejected by the apex court.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
Need Help- Call Aasra | Aasra
