Yuvraj Manchanda death case: Saket court summons entire Gurugram Police record over alleged lapses

A Delhi court has directed Gurugram Police to produce the complete record relating to the recovery, identification, post-mortem examination and cremation of 31-year-old Yuvraj Singh Manchanda, whose alleged murder has triggered questions over the handling of his unidentified body and crucial evidence.

The Saket court directed the records to be produced by 12.30 pm on September 22 after an application was moved by Manchanda’s sister raising allegations of serious procedural lapses by Gurugram Police. The court has sought an extensive set of documents, including police records, forensic material and digital evidence connected with the case. The development comes as an assistant sub-inspector posted at Gurugram’s Badshahpur police station has been suspended over alleged negligence and procedural lapses in handling the recovery of Manchanda’s body. His remains were recovered from a drain on September 10 but were cremated as unidentified on September 14, before his family could take custody of them.

Court seeks full record

The court has asked Gurugram Police to produce records concerning the recovery of the body, its identification and the steps taken before its cremation. It has also sought official police logs, post-mortem and forensic reports, details of DNA samples and other biological material preserved during the investigation.

Digital evidence, including available CCTV footage and call detail records, has also been sought. The police have additionally been asked to furnish relevant entries on the Zonal Integrated Police Network, or ZIPNET, which is used to share information about missing persons and unidentified bodies. The direction assumes significance because the timing and classification of information uploaded by Gurugram Police have emerged as a major point of contention in the case.

Manchanda’s family has alleged that his body was cremated with unusual haste and that evidence and personal belongings were not properly preserved. Gurugram Police have disputed parts of the family’s account and maintained that prescribed procedures were followed after the decomposed body was recovered.

What happened to Yuvraj?

Manchanda, a resident of Delhi’s Sarita Vihar who worked as a sales professional in the real estate sector, disappeared on September 6 after spending time with his family in Lajpat Nagar.

According to police, he left after telling his family that he was going to Gurugram for a meeting. When he failed to return, his family began trying to locate him. His sister eventually approached Lajpat Nagar police station on September 11, following which a missing-person case was registered. Delhi Police subsequently examined call detail records, internet protocol records, CCTV footage and other technical evidence. Investigators traced his last interactions to former colleague Anya Vats.

Police later arrested Vats and her partner Sanyam Sachdeva in Uttarakhand. Delhi Police have alleged that the two were involved in Manchanda’s killing and the disposal of his body in Gurugram. The accused are in police custody while investigators attempt to establish the motive and reconstruct the sequence of events.

Body already cremated

A crucial complication emerged after the arrests. Gurugram Police had recovered an unidentified decomposed body from a drain in the Badshahpur area on September 10 — a day before Manchanda’s family formally reported him missing in Delhi. The body underwent a post-mortem examination and was subsequently cremated as unidentified on September 14.

Delhi Police had uploaded Manchanda’s missing-person details on ZIPNET before the cremation. Reports have since raised questions over whether the Gurugram Police checked the database in time and whether information relating to the recovered body was correctly uploaded and classified. Gurugram Police have maintained that information about the unidentified body was entered into other police systems and that procedures, including preservation of the body for the prescribed period, were followed.

The investigating officer who handled the body recovery has since been suspended after senior officers examined alleged lapses in the process.

Family questions evidence handling

Manchanda’s family has raised several questions about what happened to his remains and belongings after the body was recovered. His sister has alleged that the family was unable to obtain his ashes after learning of his death and questioned whether his clothes and other personal effects had been properly preserved. The family has also sought clarity over the post-mortem findings and the cause of death.

Gurugram Police have said some belongings, including a watch and a kada, were preserved. The conflicting accounts have made the documentation now sought by the Saket court particularly important. There have also been differing accounts surrounding the medical findings. Gurugram Police have referred to findings suggesting drowning or asphyxiation, while Delhi investigators have been examining evidence gathered during the murder probe. The complete post-mortem and forensic records are therefore expected to be central to establishing what happened.

September 22 hearing crucial

The records ordered by the Saket court could help establish whether mandatory procedures were followed after the unidentified body was recovered, what forensic material remains available and whether information that could have led to an earlier identification was properly shared. They could also clarify the handling of Manchanda’s personal belongings and the sequence leading to the decision to cremate the body.

With the criminal investigation into the alleged murder proceeding separately, the September 22 production of records will put the focus on another aspect of the case — whether lapses in coordination and procedure resulted in Manchanda being cremated as an unidentified person even as his family and Delhi Police were searching for him.