7
New Delhi
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR and conduct a fresh investigation into the 2020 death of celebrity manager Disha Salian, holding that the Mumbai Police investigation had several “glaring discrepancies” and that the circumstances warranted a substantive investigation into a cognizable offence. The court directed the CBI to appoint a senior and experienced investigating officer and ordered the Malvani police to hand over all relevant papers and articles.
Satish Salian, Disha’s father, had approached the Bombay High Court seeking registration of an FIR and a CBI investigation after saying that he had initially accepted the police conclusion that his daughter had died by suicide but subsequently came to suspect foul play. In his 2025 petition, Salian alleged that Disha had been gang-raped and murdered and that influential political, police and other individuals had participated in a cover-up. He specifically sought action against Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray.
Disha Salian, 28, was a celebrity manager and had worked with actor Sushant Singh Rajput. She died on June 8, 2020, after falling from a high-rise residential building in Mumbai’s Malad area. Her death occurred six days before Rajput was found dead at his Bandra residence on 14 June 2020. The proximity of the two deaths subsequently led to widespread speculation linking the cases, although the investigations did not establish such a connection. The CBI investigation into Rajput’s death also did not pursue a link between the two cases for want of supporting evidence.
The Malvani police registered an Accidental Death Report on 9 June 2020, and conducted an inquiry under Section 174 of the CrPC. The police investigation concluded that Disha had died by suicide. A closure report was accepted by the Special Executive Magistrate on 4 February 2021. According to the police, statements recorded during the investigation indicated that she was under mental stress arising from personal and professional issues.
The matter resurfaced in the Maharashtra Assembly in December 2023 after BJP leader Nitesh Rane raised allegations of foul play. The then Maharashtra government constituted a Special Investigation Team headed by Rajiv Jain, then an additional police commissioner, to conduct a further inquiry. According to reporting at the time, the SIT issued summonses to people who had alleged foul play, including members of Disha’s family and Rane, but the investigation did not progress because those summoned did not record their statements.
The Maharashtra government subsequently ordered further investigation. The second investigation continued for years and, according to the police’s submissions before the High Court, ultimately did not change the original conclusion that Disha had died by suicide. The second report was submitted on 14 April 2026, and accepted on 6 May 2026. The police maintained that no fresh evidence of foul play had emerged.
Salian’s position changed substantially by March 2025. He told the media that he had initially believed the investigation was genuine but had subsequently come to suspect that his daughter had been murdered and that the investigation had been used to cover up the circumstances of her death. He then moved the High Court seeking a fresh investigation by the CBI and registration of an FIR.
In a written complaint submitted to the Mumbai Police in March 2025, Salian’s lawyer Nilesh Ojha named Aaditya Thackeray, actors Dino Morea and Sooraj Pancholi, Pancholi’s bodyguard, former Mumbai Police commissioner Param Bir Singh, dismissed police officer Sachin Vaze and actor Rhea Chakraborty. The complainant’s side alleged gang rape, murder and a subsequent cover-up. The lawyer also alleged that Param Bir Singh played a central role in the alleged cover-up.
These names, however, need to be described carefully. They were named as accused or alleged participants in Salian’s complaint. They were not convicted or judicially found responsible for Disha’s death. More importantly, the original Mumbai Police death inquiry did not result in an FIR accusing them of murdering Disha. The High Court’s present order has now directed the CBI to register an FIR and specifically said that nobody should be treated as an accused unless the investigating officer finds sufficient material giving rise to reasonable suspicion against that person.
The High Court’s intervention followed its scrutiny of the police records and the manner in which the investigation had been conducted. The Bench noted that the police had effectively investigated the matter in two phases over more than six years without registering an FIR for a cognizable offence. It held that the Section 174 inquiry was inadequate because such proceedings are intended primarily to ascertain the apparent cause of an unnatural or suspicious death and cannot substitute for a substantive investigation where circumstances indicate a cognizable offence.
One of the court’s concerns was the delay in conducting the spot panchnama. Police had reached the building and inspected the flat shortly after the incident, but the formal spot panchnama was conducted only several hours later. The court said the delay remained unexplained.
The Bench also questioned the timing recorded in the Accidental Death Report. The ADR was registered at 3.07 am on 9 June 2020 and recorded the incident/death time as 2.25 am. However, the statement of Satish Salian indicated that he received a call from Malvani police at around 3 am and reached Shatabdi Hospital around 4 am. The court questioned how his statement could have been referred to in an ADR registered before he had apparently reached the hospital.
The court also examined CCTV records showing police presence at the building before the ADR was registered. According to the records considered by the Bench, police personnel were present in the building and flat at times including 12.59 am, 1.33 am and 2.14 am. The court questioned why the police investigation did not explain why officers had reached the building at those times and what they had done there.
Another issue concerned the scene where Disha allegedly fell. Witnesses had stated that they heard the sound of a person falling and saw her fall on her face, with blood coming from her head. The court noted that the police did not recover blood-stained earth from the spot. The Bench also examined the postmortem findings, which recorded several external and internal injuries.
The court particularly examined the nature of the injuries. It noted that the postmortem report recorded a 1x1x1 cm injury on the chin along with abrasions and internal injuries including a linear skull fracture and multiple rib fractures. The Bench questioned whether the recorded external injuries were consistent with a fall from the 12th floor, particularly since there was no fracture of the mandible or nasal bone. The court said the issue would ultimately require expert examination.
The Forensic Science Laboratory had also raised a question regarding the quantity of blood. A communication from the Assistant Chemical Analyzer recorded that, considering the stated circumstances of a fall from the 12th floor, more blood would ordinarily have been expected on the articles sent to the laboratory. The court noted that the police subsequently sought an explanation from the medical officer regarding the relatively low quantity of blood, including on the clothes.
The Bench found another discrepancy regarding the bedroom door. One statement said Disha had locked herself inside a bedroom and was crying, while statements of friends said Rohan Rai had forcefully opened the door. The court said that if the door had been forcibly opened, some damage to the lock or door would ordinarily have been expected, but the spot panchnama did not record any such damage.
The handling of forensic samples also came under scrutiny. The postmortem report and the letter sent to the FSL referred to vaginal and anal swabs, whereas the material actually received by the FSL consisted of vaginal and anal smears on slides. The medical officer subsequently clarified that swabs had not been taken and that the reference to swabs in the forwarding form was inadvertent. The court noted the significance of the discrepancy in the context of the allegations. The forensic report, however, recorded that no male DNA was detected on the slides.
The court also questioned why police had written to the doctor conducting the postmortem asking why the body was nude when the police themselves had already seized the deceased’s clothes. The clothes had been kept on a stretcher and identified by Rohan Rai.
The handling of Disha’s electronic devices was another issue. Her laptop and mobile phone were important pieces of evidence but were seized and examined only on 17 June 2020 from the custody of Rohan Rai. They had not been seized during the spot panchnama conducted on 9 June .
On the basis of these circumstances, the Bench concluded that there were too many discrepancies to permit the matter to remain within the limited scope of a Section 174 inquiry. It held that the case required registration of an FIR and a substantive investigation under the provisions governing cognizable offences.
The court rejected the Maharashtra government’s argument that Salian should approach a Magistrate for an investigation. It noted that the police had already had sufficient opportunity to investigate the matter and had conducted two rounds of inquiry over more than six years without registering an FIR. The court therefore held that directing Salian to approach the Magistrate would not be an effective remedy in the circumstances.
The Bench also rejected the request that the CBI investigation be conducted under the direct supervision of the High Court, saying there was no reason to doubt that the CBI would conduct a fair, impartial and effective investigation.
The court was careful not to prejudge the case. It expressly stated that it had not made observations against any particular individual and that the CBI would have complete freedom to investigate all aspects of the death. The Bench said its observations about suspicious circumstances were made only to determine whether registration of an FIR and investigation into a cognizable offence were necessary.
Under the order, the CBI’s Mumbai-region officer has to appoint a suitably experienced senior officer as investigating officer. The officer has been directed to record Satish Salian’s statement and register the FIR. The investigation will cover all circumstances surrounding Disha’s death, while nobody can be treated as an accused unless sufficient material emerges against that person.
The court has also left open the possibility that the CBI may ultimately conclude that no offence was committed. In that event, it can file an appropriate summary before the competent court. Satish Salian would then have the right to challenge that conclusion through a Protest Petition.