The family of 31-year-old real estate executive Yuvraj Manchanda has accused Gurugram Police of mishandling his body and personal belongings after his death, alleging that evidence was lost or disposed of before the family could receive it. The allegations were made by his sister Karishma, according to a report by Live Hindustan – NCR.
Manchanda went missing on September 6 after travelling with Karishma to Lajpat Nagar to buy a sherwani for his wedding scheduled for the following month. He reportedly left after saying he had to attend an urgent meeting and was last seen by his sister at that time.
According to the report, Delhi Police arrested Anya Vats, described as the main accused, and her associate Sanyam Sachdeva in Uttarakhand about 10 days after Manchanda went missing. The report does not include a police response to the family’s allegations or provide the contents of the post-mortem report.
Karishma alleged that Gurugram Police found Manchanda’s body on September 10 but did not upload details of the unidentified body on ZIPNET, the police-operated online platform used to help match missing persons with unidentified people and recovered bodies. The system records details such as the date of disappearance, age, height, clothing, physical features, gender and state.
She further alleged that the body was cremated on September 14 without the family being informed. Karishma told the publication that when she travelled to Gurugram to collect the ashes, she was told after waiting at a police station for three hours that the ashes had already been immersed.
The family also alleges that Manchanda’s clothes and other belongings were not preserved or handed over. Karishma said police officials told her that the clothes had been given to someone because they smelled. She also said that officers initially indicated that his watch and bracelet were at a medical hospital, while hospital staff allegedly told the family that the investigating officer had already taken them.
Karishma also referred to a gold ring that she said had a yellow topaz stone. According to her account, the family was not given any of these items. She said the issue was not only whether a particular item existed, but that the family had not received any identifiable belongings or remains.
The family has also questioned the reported explanation that Manchanda died by drowning. Karishma said an officer told them that the death involved water accumulated in a field rather than a pond. She questioned how a person nearly six feet tall could drown in such conditions and asked why the police had concluded that drowning was the cause of death.
She also questioned whether the body had injuries when it was recovered and why the family had not received the post-mortem report. Her allegations centre on whether standard procedures for identifying an unidentified body, preserving personal effects, documenting the remains and informing relatives were followed.
The case places attention on the administrative chain that connects missing-person complaints, unidentified-body records, post-mortem documentation and the release or disposal of remains. ZIPNET is intended to support the matching of missing people with unidentified persons and bodies, making the timing and completeness of entries important to families searching across police jurisdictions.
The supplied report records the family’s allegations and the account attributed to police officials about the body’s condition and the reported cause of death. It does not establish independently whether evidence was destroyed, whether the ZIPNET entry was omitted, or whether the police procedures complied with applicable rules. The next documented developments will depend on the police response and the records produced in the investigation, including the post-mortem documentation and details of the recovered belongings.
