The joint operation by the UP STF, Lucknow Police and Nagpur Police led to the arrest of Shraddha Dubey, her sister Rashmi and driver Tanvir alias Danish. (Img: X)
Lucknow/Nagpur: From the world of makeup artistry, modelling and social media to the centre of a high-profile criminal investigation, Shraddha Dubey has emerged as a key figure in the death case of 28-year-old businessman Shiva Sharma. The social media influencer was arrested in Nagpur by a joint team of the Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force (UP STF), Lucknow Police and Nagpur Police, along with her sister Rashmi Dubey and driver Tanvir alias Danish.
All three were carrying a reward of Rs 50,000 each, according to the police account. Their arrest marks a significant development in a case that has raised serious questions about the circumstances surrounding Sharma’s death, the nature of his relationship with Dubey and a series of allegations involving threats, financial pressure and a jewellery dispute.
But who is Shraddha Dubey, how did she become connected to the businessman, and what are the investigators trying to establish? The answers lie in a case involving competing claims, a murder FIR and an ongoing effort to reconstruct the events preceding a fatal fall.
Shraddha Dubey is known as a makeup artist, model and social media influencer. According to reports, she separated from her husband several years ago and moved to Lucknow. She had reportedly been married for around a decade and has a son who is said to live with his father.
After moving to Lucknow, Dubey reportedly established connections within the city’s glamour and social media circles. Her personal relationships and financial dealings have now come under scrutiny as investigators work to establish the background to the case.
However, her professional identity and personal circumstances are not evidence of criminal wrongdoing. The central question for investigators is whether the allegations against her and the other accused can be substantiated through admissible evidence.
The case gained prominence after businessman Shiva Sharma died following an alleged fall from the fourth floor of a residential building associated with Dubey. Sharma’s family subsequently accused her and others of involvement in circumstances surrounding his death. A murder case was registered, but the allegations remain subject to investigation and judicial determination.
Shiva Sharma, 28, reportedly owned a chain of restaurants. According to the available account, he died last week after allegedly falling from the fourth floor of Dubey’s flat in Lucknow.
His mother, Ranjana Sharma, accused Dubey of threatening to circulate obscene videos of her son and damage his reputation. She also alleged that Sharma had faced physical violence during the relationship.
Dubey, however, rejected the allegations before her arrest and maintained that Sharma died by suicide after jumping from the fourth floor of her building. She argued that CCTV footage from the premises could help establish the sequence of events and support her account.
The competing claims make the reconstruction of the incident a critical part of the investigation. CCTV recordings, forensic findings, witness statements, digital communications and other material could help investigators determine what happened before the fatal fall. At present, the precise circumstances of Sharma’s death and the allegations against the accused have not been conclusively established in court.
Reports indicate that Sharma and Dubey met at a club approximately six months before the incident. Police reportedly confirmed that Sharma had been living in Dubey’s flat for around four months.
According to Sharma’s family, he was serious about the relationship, but tensions allegedly developed when discussions about marriage began. His mother claimed that Dubey’s behaviour changed as the question of their future together came into focus.
The family has suggested that differences over marriage and expectations from the relationship may be relevant to the case. Investigators are examining when the alleged disagreement began, whether it escalated and whether any conflict had a demonstrable connection to Sharma’s death.
Sharma reportedly last visited his family home in Aliganj on the 13th to mark his father’s death anniversary. This detail forms part of the broader timeline investigators may consider while reconstructing his movements before the incident. The exact nature of the relationship, the extent of the alleged tensions and their relevance to the death remain matters for verification.
The case was registered at Lucknow’s Hazratganj police station on October 17 following a written complaint by Sharma’s mother. The FIR named Shraddha Dubey, her sister Rashmi Dubey, their driver Danish, an associate identified as Adil and other unidentified individuals as accused.
Police subsequently formed teams comprising surveillance personnel, the Special Operations Group and local police to locate the accused. Non-bailable warrants were also obtained against the three individuals initially reported to be absconding: Shraddha Dubey, Rashmi Dubey and Danish.
The Lucknow Police had increased the reward for information leading to their apprehension from Rs 25,000 to Rs 50,000 per person. A court in Saharanpur had also issued a notice to one of the accused and scheduled a hearing for October 30, directing Dubey to present her defence on that date.
The subsequent joint operation in Nagpur led to the arrest of Dubey, her sister and the driver, according to Lucknow Police Commissioner Tarun Gauba. The development marks a shift in the investigation from tracing the accused to examining the evidence and individual roles of those named in the case.
Investigators had also been examining whether the sisters travelled towards the Nepal border after the case was registered. According to an earlier police account, searches were conducted at locations across Lucknow, Sitapur and Raebareli, while information about possible hideouts and contacts was being gathered.
Rizwan, described in reports as an old acquaintance of Shraddha, allegedly told investigators that he had driven both sisters to Rupaidiha, near the Nepal border. Police were attempting to verify the account and reconstruct the sisters’ movements.
The alleged journey became one of the leads pursued during the search operation. However, the precise circumstances of their movements and whether any other individuals assisted them required verification. Their subsequent arrest in Nagpur represents a major development in the effort to establish the sequence of events.
A reported dispute involving a chain and bracelet has emerged as another significant aspect of the case. Sharma’s family alleged that Dubey threatened to implicate him in a theft case involving jewellery valued at approximately Rs 6 lakh.
According to the family’s account, Dubey claimed that the jewellery had been gifted to her by a high-profile individual. Investigators are examining the alleged dispute, including the ownership of the items, the claims made by the parties and whether any threats were issued.
Before her arrest, Dubey offered a different account of the alleged financial and jewellery-related disagreements. She claimed that Sharma owed between Rs 16 lakh and Rs 17 lakh and was distressed by repeated calls from creditors. She also alleged that he had taken jewellery worth approximately Rs 5 lakh to Rs 6 lakh from her residence about a month before the incident and had promised in a video to return it.
These are competing allegations that have not been independently verified. Investigators will need to determine whether the claims are supported by documentary evidence, digital records, witness accounts or other material—and whether the alleged disputes have any connection to Sharma’s death.
Before being arrested, Dubey questioned why CCTV footage from her building had not been retrieved or made public. She argued that recordings from other locations, including the Nepal border, had reportedly been obtained and sought an explanation for the absence of footage from the building where Sharma allegedly fell.
Dubey maintained that the recordings could establish the sequence of events and support her version of the incident. She also rejected the allegations made by Sharma’s mother and argued that guilt should not be presumed before the investigation is complete.
Her account remains unverified. Investigators will need to establish whether relevant footage exists, whether it has been secured and whether it can help corroborate or contradict the accounts provided by those involved.
The evidentiary value of CCTV recordings will depend on their authenticity, completeness and relevance to the timeline. Forensic examination and corroboration with other evidence may be necessary to draw reliable conclusions.
Dubey had also faced questions about why she left while Sharma was being taken to hospital. She claimed that she was experiencing breathing difficulties, was in shock following the incident and had personal reasons for leaving.
She further alleged that her driver had been assaulted, causing him to panic and leave the scene. These claims have not been independently established.
Dubey also objected to photographs of herself with different individuals circulating on social media and denied claims that a purported diary had exposed the case. Regarding her sister’s alleged involvement, she maintained that Rashmi Dubey had no knowledge of the incident.
