Shalini Thakur’s mother is questioning why months of reported harassment and a restraining order did not prevent her daughter’s death.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Sudesh Kumari had traveled from India to spend several months with her only daughter, Shalini Thakur. After Thakur was killed outside a Sacramento-area shopping center, Kumari instead found herself visiting a memorial of flowers and candles and asking why repeated reports of stalking had not kept her daughter safe.
The 38-year-old Thakur was fatally shot Sept. 8 near a Panera Bread on Howe Avenue, according to the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office. Investigators identified the man who confronted her as Rohit Rohit, 22, whom Thakur had accused in court of an escalating pattern of harassment. She had obtained a civil harassment restraining order months before her death and reported a possible violation in July. Rohit fled after the shooting and was later found dead in his vehicle from what authorities said appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Kumari’s account has given the case a deeply personal dimension beyond the police chronology. She told local reporters that Thakur was hardworking and cared for her, and family members described Thakur in an online fundraiser as loving, selfless and generous. Kumari said her daughter had contacted law enforcement many times about Rohit. After the killing, she said she believed the system had not done enough to protect her. Authorities say deputies had remained in contact with Thakur for months because they, too, were concerned about her safety.
Thakur’s connection to Rohit began through an ordinary part of her workday. CBS Sacramento reported that she worked at an IHOP in the Arden area. Rohit was a DoorDash delivery driver who came to the restaurant to pick up orders. According to investigators and Thakur’s later court filing, those routine workplace encounters were followed by unwanted attention outside work. Authorities say the behavior progressed into persistent stalking rather than a consensual romantic relationship.
In her request for court protection, Thakur said the stalking began around September 2025 and progressively became more frequent and severe. She described Rohit trying to interfere with her relationships and pressuring her to marry him. Court records reviewed by local news organizations said she accused him of threatening to shoot himself or people she met if she did not comply. The filing gave a formal account of conduct that had moved well beyond unwanted messages or repeated attempts at conversation.
By January, one of the alleged acts involved technology. The sheriff’s office said Thakur discovered an Apple AirTag hidden under the hood of her vehicle. Investigators said Rohit later interfered with one of the vehicle’s tires and followed Thakur to work so he could offer assistance. In her declaration, Thakur said he later admitted tampering with the vehicle. The allegations indicated that Rohit was not simply attempting to contact her but had found ways to monitor or influence her movements.
Another incident involved Thakur’s apartment. Sheriff’s officials said Rohit obtained a copy of her key and entered the residence while she was sleeping. Investigators said he later claimed that he went inside because she had not responded and he feared something had happened to her. Combined with the tracking allegation and vehicle tampering, the reported entry added to concerns among detectives who later described Rohit’s behavior as increasingly alarming.
Sheriff’s officials say Thakur initially chose not to pursue charges or obtain a restraining order. Deputies and detectives stayed in contact with her, according to the department, and continued to encourage her to seek a civil order. In May, she did. Rohit was personally served with temporary restraining-order paperwork on May 19, according to a proof-of-service filing reported by Law&Crime. CBS Sacramento reported that the resulting order was intended to remain in effect until May 2027.
The legal restriction did not eliminate contact. On July 29, Thakur told deputies that Rohit had left random groceries outside her front door. She reported the incident as a restraining-order violation. Sgt. Amar Gandhi said detectives attempted more than once to locate Rohit afterward but were unsuccessful. Gandhi also said the alleged offenses being handled at that point were misdemeanors. There is no indication in the public accounts reviewed for this report that deputies took Rohit into custody over the July complaint before the fatal shooting.
On Sept. 8, investigators say Rohit arrived at the Howe Avenue shopping center shortly before 3 p.m. Thakur’s car was already in the parking lot, and she was dropped off near it a short time later. According to the sheriff’s office, Rohit approached and began confronting her. Thakur tried to run. Authorities say Rohit chased her, fired multiple shots and then shot her again at close range after she fell. Several witnesses called authorities, and deputies found Thakur at the scene. She was pronounced dead there.
The information supplied by witnesses allowed deputies to move quickly after the attack. Authorities obtained a description of Rohit’s vehicle and entered it into the Flock license-plate camera system. The sheriff’s office said the system produced a recent location almost immediately. Regional Transit deputies located the vehicle near Highway 50 and Howe Avenue and attempted to stop it. Rohit stopped the vehicle, and officers tried to get him to come out. They eventually found him dead inside from what investigators described as an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Because Rohit died, the case will not result in a homicide trial. That leaves Thakur’s court filings, police reports and the sheriff’s investigation as the main public records through which the history can be examined. Kumari’s criticism focuses on the fact that the danger was not wholly unknown before Sept. 8. The sheriff’s office, meanwhile, points to its repeated contacts with Thakur, encouragement to seek a restraining order and attempts to find Rohit after the July report as evidence that deputies were responding to the information available to them.
The case has also raised questions for DoorDash because Rohit’s delivery work is how investigators say he encountered Thakur. A company spokesperson told The Sacramento Bee that DoorDash was cooperating with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office and has zero tolerance for violence or harassment. Authorities have not said Rohit was making a DoorDash delivery when Thakur was killed. The company’s role in the established facts is limited to the work connection through which Rohit had previously gone to Thakur’s restaurant.
After the homicide, the Department of Homeland Security said Rohit was an Indian national who entered the United States unlawfully through Arizona in August 2023 and was arrested by Border Patrol before being released. The department used the case to attack immigration policies under the previous presidential administration. Those assertions concern Rohit’s immigration history, while Sacramento County’s investigation has focused on his alleged stalking, the restraining order and the circumstances of the Sept. 8 shooting. Local authorities have not identified immigration status as a motive for the killing.
In the days after Thakur’s death, Kumari’s loss remained at the center of local coverage. KCRA reported that Thakur had spoken to her mother by phone before the shooting and said she would call again. Kumari later tried to reach her when that call did not come. The exchange became their final conversation. The Los Angeles Times reported that Thakur had been expected to turn 39 later that month. Instead, her family was preparing for her funeral.
Detectives say they are still investigating the immediate events that led to the confrontation in the parking lot. Authorities have established the broader sequence through witnesses, previous reports and court records, but they have not publicly explained every event in the period immediately before the shooting. With no surviving suspect to question, investigators are continuing to reconstruct that final part of the case while Thakur’s family presses a larger question about whether the documented warning signs could have led to a different outcome.
Author note: Last updated October 21, 2026.