Shalini Thakur had documented escalating harassment and reported a possible order violation weeks before authorities say Rohit Rohit killed her.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Shalini Thakur had a restraining order against Rohit Rohit when authorities say he waited for her at a Sacramento-area shopping center, chased her through the parking lot and fatally shot her. The order followed months of police contacts and a court filing in which Thakur described increasingly intrusive conduct and threats.
The Sept. 8 killing has placed new attention on what happened after Thakur sought formal protection. Court records and accounts from the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office show that authorities knew about the alleged stalking, encouraged Thakur to seek a restraining order and investigated a reported violation in July. Deputies said they tried to contact Rohit after that report but could not find him. Less than six weeks later, investigators say the 22-year-old confronted and killed Thakur, 38, before fleeing and later dying from an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Thakur’s request for a civil harassment order laid out behavior that she said had been escalating since September 2025. CBS Sacramento reported that she wrote the stalking had grown in both frequency and severity. She described Rohit interfering with her car, trying to control whom she saw and pressuring her to marry him. She also told the court that he had threatened to shoot himself or other people if she would not marry him. The filing documented more than a disagreement or unwanted conversation; it described an ongoing pattern that Thakur said caused significant anxiety and emotional distress.
For Thakur’s mother, Sudesh Kumari, the existence of that record has sharpened questions about whether her daughter could have been better protected. Kumari, who had traveled from India to spend several months with her only daughter, told local reporters that Thakur contacted police repeatedly. After the killing, she visited the shopping center where a memorial of flowers and candles had formed. Kumari said she believed authorities had failed to keep Thakur safe despite the repeated reports. Her criticism has become one of the central questions surrounding the case.
Sheriff’s officials describe the history differently. They say deputies and detectives were sufficiently worried about Rohit’s behavior that they remained in contact with Thakur even when she initially did not want to pursue charges or seek a restraining order. Sgt. Amar Gandhi said investigators repeatedly urged her to obtain one. Thakur eventually followed that advice in May. Records reported by Law&Crime show Rohit was personally served with temporary restraining-order paperwork on May 19, and CBS Sacramento reported that an order was later put in place through May 2027.
The court order did not end the reported contact. On July 29, Thakur told deputies that Rohit had left grocery items outside her front door, conduct she believed violated the order. The sheriff’s office opened a report. Gandhi said detectives went out more than once in an effort to contact Rohit but were unable to locate him. He also said the offenses under investigation at that point were classified as misdemeanors. Authorities have not said they had Rohit in custody between the reported violation and the day Thakur was killed.
The fatal confrontation happened just before 3 p.m. on Sept. 8 near a Panera Bread on Howe Avenue. Investigators say Rohit arrived at the shopping center first. Thakur was then dropped off near her vehicle, which had already been left in the lot. The sheriff’s office said Rohit approached and confronted her. When she tried to get away, he chased her and fired multiple times. After she fell, investigators say, he approached and shot her again at close range. Thakur was pronounced dead after deputies reached the scene.
The response after the shooting unfolded rapidly. Witnesses provided information about Rohit’s vehicle, and deputies entered the description into the Flock automated license-plate system. The sheriff’s office said the system quickly indicated where the vehicle had recently been seen. Regional Transit deputies located it near Highway 50 and Howe Avenue. Officers attempted a stop, and the vehicle came to a halt. After deputies tried for some time to get the driver to leave the vehicle, they found Rohit dead inside from what investigators said appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
The relationship between Thakur and Rohit began not through a personal partnership but through her workplace, according to court records and local reporting. Thakur worked at an IHOP in the Arden area. Rohit picked up orders there while working as a DoorDash driver. Investigators say his contact with Thakur developed into a fixation. The distinction matters because the case emerged from repeated access created through routine work interactions, rather than from a former marriage or household relationship.
Authorities later reconstructed a series of incidents that occurred well before the restraining order. In January, Thakur found an Apple AirTag hidden under the hood of her vehicle, the sheriff’s office said. Investigators also said Rohit let air out of one of her tires and followed her to work, where he could present himself as someone offering assistance. In another incident, officials said he obtained a copy of her apartment key and entered while she was asleep. Rohit later claimed he entered because she had not responded and he was worried about her, according to investigators.
Those allegations help explain why deputies say they continued urging Thakur to use the civil court process. But the killing has also underscored what a restraining order can and cannot accomplish when a person refuses to comply. The order created enforceable restrictions and provided documentation of the prohibited conduct. It did not physically prevent Rohit from returning to Thakur’s home or appearing at the shopping center. In this case, investigators say a possible violation had already been reported before the fatal encounter occurred.
DoorDash said it was cooperating with investigators and described the killing as an unimaginable tragedy. The company said it has zero tolerance for violence or harassment. Authorities have not said Rohit was performing a delivery at the time of the shooting, and his DoorDash work should not be confused with the circumstances of the attack itself. Investigators have cited that work because it explains how he initially encountered Thakur at the restaurant where she was employed.
The Department of Homeland Security later said Rohit was an Indian national who entered the United States unlawfully through Arizona in August 2023, was detained by Border Patrol and was subsequently released. The department used the case to criticize policies of the previous federal administration. That immigration history was released after the killing and is separate from the Sacramento County investigation into how the stalking reports and restraining-order violation were handled. Local authorities have not said immigration status caused the attack or changed their response to Thakur’s earlier complaints.
Currently, detectives with the sheriff’s office say they continue to investigate the immediate events leading to Thakur’s death. One unresolved question is what occurred in the moments before Rohit confronted her at the shopping center. Another is whether any additional evidence can clarify his actions after the July report. With Rohit also dead, the case will not proceed through a criminal trial where evidence could be tested in court. The official record instead consists of Thakur’s court filings, police reports, witness accounts and the continuing homicide investigation.
Author note: Last updated October 21, 2026.