New forensic evidence from a seized saw could become part of a circumstantial case set for trial in 2026.
MANASSAS PARK, Va. — Nearly two years after Mamta Kafle Bhatt vanished, prosecutors are pressing a murder case against her husband without her body and with new evidence from a power saw seized at their home.
The central challenge is clear: authorities say Mamta is dead, but her remains have not been found. Naresh Bhatt, 39, is charged with murder, concealing a dead body and physically defiling a dead body. He has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors are expected to rely on forensic testing, alleged disposal activity, digital evidence and his statements to police to argue that Mamta was killed inside the Manassas Park home.
The newest public filing centers on a reciprocating saw. An April 29 forensic report says three human hairs, 13 human hair fragments, apparent fibers and debris were recovered from the handheld tool. The three hairs may be suitable for nuclear DNA testing and were sent for further analysis. The results have not been released. The fragments were not deemed suitable for that testing. The report followed earlier testing that found blood on parts of the same saw, with Mamta unable to be eliminated as a possible contributor to DNA from stained swabs.
In a case without recovered remains, each physical item takes on added weight. Prosecutors have alleged that blood was found in the home and that evidence showed a dead body had been dragged from the master bedroom to a bathroom. They also have said Naresh Bhatt bought knives, cleaning supplies and a large pack of heavy-duty trash bags around the time Mamta disappeared. Surveillance video, according to investigators, captured him moving bags into a dumpster and later into a trash compactor. Authorities believe her body was dismembered and her remains were scattered across Northern Virginia.
Mamta’s disappearance unfolded in late July 2024. She was last seen July 27 at UVA Health Prince William Medical Center in Manassas, where she worked as a nurse. A friend received two calls from her phone on July 28. Her social media activity stopped on July 29. On Aug. 2, police came to the home after her supervisor asked for a welfare check. Naresh Bhatt told officers he had not seen her since July 31 and said she might have gone to New York or Texas. He said the couple was separating and told police she had left before.
Those early statements are likely to matter at trial. Body camera footage preserved the welfare-check conversation, including his explanation that Mamta may have left voluntarily. Prosecutors have since described that account as part of an alleged effort to mislead people about what happened. The defense may argue that the state is asking jurors to infer too much from incomplete evidence. Jurors will not be asked whether the case is disturbing or unusual. They will be asked whether prosecutors have proved each charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
Virginia’s legal process has already stretched across two years. Naresh Bhatt was arrested Aug. 22, 2024, on the concealment charge. A grand jury later indicted him on murder and defiling-a-body charges. The trial was delayed after defense attorneys said they needed more time to review discovery, including a large amount of digital evidence. The case is now scheduled for October 2026 in Prince William County Circuit Court. Pretrial hearings are expected to decide what evidence can be shown to jurors and what expert testimony may be allowed.
The saw evidence could raise several courtroom issues. Prosecutors may argue that a DNA profile from the hairs would help connect the tool to Mamta or to events after her death. Defense lawyers may question the strength of the sample, the chain of custody, contamination risks or the difference between blood evidence and hair evidence. The report itself does not identify a murder weapon, and officials have not publicly said that the saw caused Mamta’s death. What it may show will depend on completed testing and expert testimony.
The absence of a body also leaves practical questions outside the courtroom. Investigators have not publicly said where they believe all of Mamta’s remains were taken. Searches have included community efforts and law enforcement work, but the case continues without recovery of her body. Family members and supporters have said the delay deepens their grief. They have attended hearings, gathered outside the courthouse and kept her name visible while the criminal case moves slowly.
The trial will also place Mamta’s life before jurors, not only the evidence after she disappeared. She was 28, a nurse, a mother and a member of a Nepali family living far from relatives overseas. Her sudden disappearance cut across her workplace, her friend circle and the local South Asian community. Prosecutors may use that context to explain why her silence was alarming. The defense may seek to keep the jury focused on proof rather than emotion.
For now, the case stands as a no-body prosecution shaped by forensic reports, surveillance claims and unanswered questions. The next major step is continued pretrial litigation before the October 2026 jury trial.
Author note: Last updated June 22, 2026.