Bombay High Court Grills Mumbai Police in Disha Salian Death Case
Why has the probe not concluded after five years? Why have case papers and basic records not been given to the father? Why were the statements of family members recorded repeatedly under Section 174 CrPC?
These were the key questions raised by the High Court as the State disclosed that CCTV footage has been resubmitted for forensic scrutiny to examine alleged tampering and the possible presence of high-profile individuals — including Aditya Thackeray — at the scene.
However, even as this critical development was placed on record, the State remained completely silent about two missing components of the investigation — the mobile tower location analysis and the scene reconstruction report — both of which earlier featured in the SIT papers but are now untraceable.
In a sensational disclosure today before the Bombay High Court, the Maharashtra Government confirmed that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) has re-sent the original CCTV footage of Disha Salian’s residence for fresh forensic analysis.
The re-examination has been triggered due to serious allegations of CCTV tampering, deletion of frames, and the possible presence of certain accused individuals — including political figure Aditya Thackeray and others — at the building on the night of Disha’s death.
However — notably and significantly — the State remained completely silent on two crucial investigative components which earlier formed part of the record: The Mobile Tower Location Analysis Report, and The Scene Reconstruction Report. Both of which, according to submissions made and documents referenced, were removed from the SIT papers without explanation.
The State made this admission in open court while being questioned on why the investigation remains incomplete even five years after the incident and why crucial case records have still not been provided to the victim’s father, Satish Salian.
The Bombay High Court — in a strongly worded session — questioned the Maharashtra Government and Mumbai Police on three critical issues:
1. Why has the investigation not concluded even after five years of Disha Salian’s death?
2. Why have even basic inquiry papers and documents not been provided to her father, Satish Salian?
3. Why were the statements of the family recorded multiple times when the proceedings were only under Section 174 CrPC, which deals with a limited inquiry?
The bench, expressing clear dissatisfaction, sought explanation for the prolonged pendency, procedural irregularities, withholding of records from the victim’s family, and for the unusual repetition of statements in what should have been a straightforward preliminary inquiry.
Adv. Ojha also highlighted Section 176(4) of the Cr.P.C., which requires that an inquiry into such suspicious deaths must be conducted in the presence of the family members of the deceased — something that did not happen in the Disha Salian case.
The Bench assured that all legal issues, statutory mandates, and entitlement to full documentation would be examined in detail on the next date of hearing. The Court directed the Public Prosecutor to take full instructions and come prepared with the case record on the next date.
During the hearing, the Bench clarified that it was not ordering a blanket disclosure of the entire investigation file at this stage, but only directing that the basic foundational documents be made available to the victim’s father. This includes consideration of whether the Post-Mortem Report and the Final Cause of Death Certificate can be furnished to him immediately.
When Adv. Nilesh Ojha attempted to place reliance on the judgment in M. Ganesan v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 8345 — which clearly holds that the police must supply the complete report along with all case documents to enable the victim to contest inaccuracies with evidence — the Court responded: “There is no need for judgments when the provision itself is clear for providing it to the victim.”
The Public Prosecutor submitted that the statements of Satish Salian and his wife were recorded multiple times and that during earlier recordings they did not level allegations against anyone, but later expressed suspicion in 2025.
However, the bench immediately questioned why the same witness was repeatedly examined under Section 174 CrPC, despite such inquiry being a preliminary procedural exercise, not meant for prolonged or repeated re-recording. When asked to explain the legal basis for such multiple examinations, the Public Prosecutor was unable to provide any satisfactory justification.
This issue is not new — it has been specifically raised by Satish Salian in his petition, wherein he alleges that repeated statement-recordings were conducted under the influence and instructions of then-accused Aditya Thackeray, ostensibly to create a controlled narrative and prevent escalation of the matter into a full-scale criminal investigation. According to the petitioner, every statement so far has been recorded only prior to the filing of the complaint alleging gang rape and murder, and not a single fresh statement has been recorded after cognizable offences were disclosed — thereby rendering earlier statements legally insignificant for the purpose of criminal adjudication.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday sharply questioned the Maharashtra Government regarding the extraordinary delay and prolonged pendency of investigation in the death of Disha Salian, celebrity manager of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput, nearly five years after the incident. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Bhonsale expressed surprise and concern over the fact that the investigation had still not reached any conclusion.
“Five years have passed. Why is investigation still not complete?” — High Court
While hearing a plea filed by Satish Salian — father of the deceased — seeking access to case papers and investigation records, the Court asked the State to explain how an inquiry under Criminal Procedure Code Sections 174 and 176 could remain pending for such an unusually long duration.
“Five years have passed and still you say the probe is going on… What is this? Someone has died. All you have to determine is whether it is suicide, culpable homicide amounting to murder, or otherwise.”
— Justice Ajay Gadkari to Public Prosecutor Mrinmay Deshmukh
Court Upset Over Non-Disclosure of Documents to Victim’s Father
After examining the petition, the Court questioned why the Mumbai Police had not even supplied basic case records to the victim’s father, despite five years having elapsed since the death.
“He is covered under Section 2(w)(a) CrPC as a ‘victim’. What difficulty is there in providing basic documents to the father? Take instructions and explain.”
— High Court to the State
Appearing for Satish Salian, Adv. Nilesh Ojha pointed out that:
• All statements recorded so far were taken before filing of the formal complaint alleging gang rape and murder.
• No fresh statements or investigation under cognizable offences have been conducted post-complaint.
• Therefore, earlier statements carry no legal value with respect to the murder allegations.
