The hearing of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against Aditya Thackeray, concerning allegations of murder and gang rape in connection with the deaths of Sushant Singh Rajput and Disha Salian, and seeking his arrest, will not take place on February 27, 2025, as Chief Justice Alok Aradhe is on leave. The next date of hearing will be communicated by the High Court Registry in due course.
Earlier, on February 5, 2025, the Bench led by the Chief Justice, after hearing the parties, had scheduled the matter for February 27, 2025.
The father of Sushant Singh Rajput has expressed his trust in the High Court and remains hopeful for a favorable outcome from the PIL.
The PIL has been filed by Sh. Rashid Khan Pathan, President of the Supreme Court and High Court Litigant’s Association of India.
Following the filing of this PIL, there has been significant public momentum, discussion, and widespread support for the matter. As a result, the state has been compelled to reopen the case and constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
The Petitioner submitted a detailed written complaint on January 12, 2024, supported by substantial evidence, including documentary proof and testimonies from certain eyewitnesses. Additionally, certain confidential eyewitnesses, whose identities have not been disclosed, will be presented directly before the Court. The Petitioner has sought the registration of an FIR and the arrest of Aditya Thackeray.
The Special Investigation Team (SIT) initiated an investigation based on the said complaint dated 12.01.2024 and provided a written intimation to the Petitioner’s advocate, which was also shared with the media. However, concerns have been raised regarding the slow pace of the investigation.
As per legal procedure, the SIT is required to first register an FIR before proceeding with the investigation. Meanwhile, the Petitioner’s advocate informed the media that two confidential eyewitnesses, along with strong digital evidence, will be presented before the trial court.
In this case, the previous Investigation Officers will also face prosecution for fabricating investigative records to shield the accused in a serious case of murder and rape.
Earlier, it had been established that the main accused, Aditya Thackeray, repeatedly presented a false defense in both cases, claiming that he did not know Rhea Chakraborty or Disha Salian. Furthermore, he maintained that on June 8, 2020—the day of Disha Salian’s death—he was attending the funeral of his grandfather, Sh. Madhav Patankar, and was not present at the party where the incident allegedly occurred.
However, these claims were disproven based on digital footprints and evidence recovered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB).
Records and WhatsApp chats recovered from Rhea Chakraborty confirmed that she and Aditya Thackeray shared a close association. Moreover, on June 8, 2020, the day Disha Salian died, Rhea Chakraborty suddenly left Sushant Singh Rajput’s residence, and Sushant Singh Rajput was murdered within six days. On the same day, there were 44 calls exchanged between Aditya Thackeray and Rhea Chakraborty, further strengthening the case regarding their involvement.
Furthermore, official records indicate that Sh. Madhav Patankar, the grandfather of Aditya Thackeray, was alive on June 8, 2020, thereby contradicting both versions presented by Aditya Thackeray in his defense.
On February 22, 2025, Sh. Kishor Tiwari, spokesperson of Uddhav Thackeray’s party, presented additional evidence against Aditya Thackeray and admitted that Aditya Thackeray was present at the party held at Disha Salian’s flat. He also acknowledged that there had been a covert arrangement with police officials at the time to shield Aditya Thackeray from legal consequences in the case.
As per the provisions of Indian penal law and the Evidence Act, along with precedents set by the Supreme Court and High Courts, an accused who provides a false defense can be convicted and sentenced by treating the false defense as additional evidence of complicity in a murder case. The Apex Court has further ruled that such an accused must be interrogated in custody, should not be granted bail, and must remain in jail until the completion of the trial.
The Petitioner’s advocate, Sh. Nilesh Ojha, informed the Court and, during a press conference, stated that a senior investigation officer, along with other police officials, had shown him critical evidence in the murder case. This included mobile tower location records, which allegedly confirmed the presence of Aditya Thackeray, Suraj Pancholi, and Dino Morea at the crime scene. Additionally, there are eyewitness accounts that reportedly establish the occurrence of gang rape and the murder of Disha Salian.
Given that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) is not conducting the investigation with the required speed and urgency, and considering that individuals accused of serious criminal offenses are roaming freely in society, posing a threat to women and children, the Petitioner is seeking a High Court-monitored investigation.
Additionally, Assistant Commissioner of Police A. P. Nipunge provided a video recording of a sting operation to the media, which exposed manipulations in the postmortem reports of Sushant Singh Rajput and Disha Salian. The recording revealed foul play, demonstrating efforts to misrepresent murder cases as suicides or accidents. His interview further substantiated allegations that certain police officials attempted to shield Aditya Thackeray and others.
The Supreme Court has ruled that circumstantial evidence, the suspicious conduct of an accused, and irregularities by investigating officers serve as additional evidence warranting a thorough investigation and the registration of an FIR. Furthermore, such evidence is sufficient to convict and sentence an accused in a murder case.
In this case, journalist Rajdeep Sardesai and the India Today Group have also been named as accused for their alleged attempt to influence the pending trial by arranging interviews of accused Rhea Chakraborty and Aditya Thackeray. They are further accused of deliberately running a false, one-sided narrative and propagating conspiracy theories to glorify the accused while misrepresenting the death of Sushant Singh Rajput as suicide. This was allegedly done by suppressing the official stand of the CBI, which had explicitly stated that they had not ruled out the possibility of murder and the matter is still sub–judice.
It is particularly significant that three investigation officers assigned to Disha Salian’s murder case were abruptly changed by the then Mumbai Police Commissioner under Uddhav Thackeray’s government.
Crucial evidence has reportedly surfaced, exposing a high-level, deep-rooted conspiracy involving Aditya Thackeray, Rhea Chakraborty, and the former investigating officers. The evidence suggests a concerted effort to shield all accused from serious charges of murder and gang rape.
According to the post-mortem entry report, Disha Salian’s body was found naked. This fact was also widely reported by mainstream media, which confirmed that her body was unclothed at the time of discovery. However, the Investigating Officer (IO) allegedly fabricated and manipulated photographs to falsely depict clothing on her body. This constitutes prima facie evidence of tampering and fabrication of evidence by the police.
Disha Salian’s body was not sent for post-mortem immediately after her death on June 8, 2020. Instead, the autopsy was deliberately delayed for three days and was conducted only on June 11, 2020, despite the serious allegations of rape and murder. This unexplained delay was allegedly intended to destroy crucial forensic evidence related to sexual assault. The Investigating Officer (IO) attempted to mislead the public by claiming that the COVID-19 pandemic caused the delay. However, this justification was contradicted by the fact that the Mumbai Police conducted Sushant Singh Rajput’s post-mortem on the very same day of his death, i.e., June 14, 2020. This discrepancy exposes a clear attempt at cover-up and suggests active foul played by the investigating officers. Such delays in post-mortem examinations are not mere procedural lapses; they severely compromise forensic evidence, especially in cases involving allegations of sexual assault.
The Mumbai Police refused to provide a copy of the case file related to Disha Salian’s case to the Bihar Police, citing that the file had been deleted from their computer systems. This claim sparked public outrage and drew strong objections from mainstream media. Further, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) later discovered that this critical communication was removed from the case file and destroyed. Given the deliberate destruction of evidence, the SIT may initiate separate legal proceedings and register an FIR under Section 409 of the IPC against the then Investigating Officer and senior police officials for criminal breach of trust by a public servant.
IPS officer Vinay Tiwari, who was actively investigating the Disha Salian and Sushant Singh Rajput cases and had demanded access to Disha Salian’s case file, was detained by Mumbai Municipal Corporation officials, citing COVID-19 protocols. However, in contrast, individuals from other states who attended Disha Salian’s party were not subjected to similar restrictions. This selective enforcement raises serious suspicions of malafide intent. At that time, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation was under the administration of the Uddhav Thackeray-led UBT group, and Uddhav Thackeray was the Chief Minister.
On June 8, 2020, strict COVID-19 restrictions were in place, including social distancing mandates, and the police had registered thousands of FIRs against individuals for organizing gatherings and parties. However, no FIR was registered against the friends of Disha Salian for hosting a party at her flat. This selective inaction strongly suggests high-level conspiracy and undue pressure on the police department to suppress the case.
Following Disha Salian’s death, only an Accidental Death Report (ADR) was registered. Notably, in an egregious misuse of police powers, this ADR case was closed at the police station level by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, instead of being submitted to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
As per legal provisions, and particularly in line with the Hon’ble Division Bench ruling in Manohari v. State, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 14216, the conclusion report of such an enquiry must be submitted before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Malad jurisdiction. Additionally, a copy of the report should have been provided to Disha Salian’s parents. However, these mandatory procedures were deliberately bypassed, allegedly because the concerned police officials knew that once the enquiry report was submitted in court, it would become accessible to the public, allowing the court to order further investigation, thereby exposing the entire cover-up.
The guidelines issued by the Division bench reads thus;
“24. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to answer the issue that was raised in this case as follows:
a) The Police on receipt of an information about the suspicious death shall register an F.I.R under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter he can proceed to the scene of occurrence and prepare an Inquest Report.
[…]
h) The power of the Police to investigate is in no way stopped or curtailed or interfered with by the inquest held by the Executive Magistrate and the freedom of the Police to proceed with the investigation will be left untouched.
i) The Police on the conclusion of the investigation shall file a Final Report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. only before the jurisdictional Magistrate and not before the Executive Magistrate. This will apply, in both cases, whether the Final Report is a positive report or is a Closure Report.
j) If in case the Police proceeds to file a Closure Report, the victim shall be entitled to be served with a R.C.S notice in order to enable him to file a protest Petition before the concerned Magistrate.
k) On such protest Petition being filed, the concerned Judicial Magistrate shall act in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, reported in [MANU/SC/1101/2012 : 2013 (5) SCC 762].
25.It is made clear that in all future cases where the F.I.R is registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C, the above procedure shall be scrupulously followed. A copy of this order may be sent to the Director General of Police, Chennai and also to the Inspector General of Police in the various Zones in order to enable them to sensitize the Police and give necessary instructions with regard to the manner in which the Police will have to proceed in all cases where an FIR is registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.
“36. The respondent Police registered a F.I.R in Cr. No. 375/2017 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The death has taken place within 8 months from the date of marriage.
3 7 . It is seen that the second respondent has filed a Closure Report in this regard before the Executive Magistrate on 23.11.2017. This procedure followed by the second respondent is completely in violation of the guidelines issued by this Court herein above. This Court is also not satisfied with the manner in which the investigation was conducted by the second respondent. This is a fit case where a fresh investigation has to be ordered by some other Police Officer.”
The abovesaid directions were again reiterated in the case of M.Ganesan vs The Inspector Of Police on 16 August, 2023 [ Crl.OP.No.18514 of 2023], where it is ruled as under;
“6. There shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to file the final report / closure report before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate Court after serving RCS notice on the petitioner. Even though, the petitioner is not the complainant in this case, the petitioner is suspecting the hand of the defacto complainant and hence, the petitioner alone wants to agitate this matter. On such service of the RCS notice, it is left open to the petitioner to file a protest petition before the concerned Court and work out his remedy in the manner known to law. This direction is issued since the petitioner is the victim in this case and hence, such an opportunity is given to the petitioner.”
Under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), it is mandatory for the Investigating Police Officer and the Executive Magistrate to inform the relatives of the deceased about the conclusion of the inquiry, and provide copy of the report in cases where no cognizable offense is revealed during the inquiry. Upon receiving this report, the deceased’s relatives, such as the father, have the legal right to take steps for the registration of an FIR under Section 154 of CrPC for cognizable offenses, including murder (Section 302 IPC) and other serious charges. In such circumstances, the High Court has the authority to order the registration of an FIR in a murder case.
In the case of P. Vijayam vs The State CRL. O.P. No. 6269 of 2021 (12.07.2021), it is ruled that the delay by the Police will cause in loss of evidence.
It is ruled as under;
“The enquiry conducting by the District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate and any other Executive Magistrate is only an additional material in a case registered under Section 174 and 176 of Cr.P.C. The investigating power of the Police has never been curtailed or taken away. In cases of last nature, immediately collecting the evidence is sine quo non. The delay in conducting the investigation would only lead to vital evidence being lost or camouflaged.
10.Thus, the Investigating Officers in the cases registered under Section 174 and 176 of Cr.P.C., apart from sending the copy of the complaint and the First Information Report to the Executive Magistrate or any other Magistrate, the copy of the same and other documents and materials collected should be sent forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Section 157 Cr.P.C. Hence, the Investigation Officer to follow this procedure without any breach. If any violation disciplinary action to be taken against the concerned officers.
The 1st respondent Police is to continue with the investigation and file a final report in this case forthwith. Whatever may be the outcome after completion of investigation, since the petitioner being the legal heir of the deceased Karthikeyan and a victim in this case, she is entitled for the copy of the final report and other documents as per Section 157 Cr.P.C. The final report copy to be furnished to the petitioner, thereafter, it is for the petitioner to take any further action, if she so desires.”
The provisions regarding Accidental Death Reports (ADR) are outlined under Section 176(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section explicitly mandates that the inquiry must be conducted in the presence of the deceased’s family members.
It reads thus;
“176(4) :- Where an enquiry is to be held under this section, the Magistrate shall, wherever practicable, inform the relatives of the deceased whose names and addresses are known, and shall allow them to remain present at the inquiry.”
However, Disha Salian’s parents were neither informed nor called during the inquiry, in clear violation of Section 176(4) of CrPC. This demonstrates malafide intent on the part of the concerned police officers.
The report prepared under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not determine the rights of the parties involved. The Executive Magistrate’s report, which is forwarded to the police, merely forms part of the materials collected during the investigation.
The report submitted by the police after conducting an inquiry or investigation under Section 174 CrPC does not constitute a positive or negative report, nor does it hold the status of a closure report. Instead, it is a fact-finding document that records preliminary observations about the apparent cause of death.
An investigation conducted after the registration of an FIR under Section 154 CrPC pertains to offenses, whereas an investigation under Section 174 CrPC is limited to an inquiry into the apparent cause of death. The inquest report prepared by the Executive Magistrate does not restrict or interfere with the police’s authority to conduct a full-fledged criminal investigation.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also ruled that a negative report under Section 174 CrPC carries no legal value and does not impact the subsequent investigation following the registration of an FIR for a cognizable offense. The report under Section 174 CrPC is not considered substantive evidence and, therefore, cannot be relied upon to dismiss or hinder a proper criminal investigation. [Amar Singh vs Balwinder Singh (2003) 2 SCC 518, Madhu v. State of Karnataka [(2014) 12 SCC 419], Bimla Devi v. Rajesh Singh [(2016) 15 SCC 448] and Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh [(2017) 11 SCC 195]
Therefore, accused Aditya Thackrey cannot take any advantage from the report by the Malad Police in ADR.
False Narrative by Mr. Aditya Thackeray about Clean Chit by CBI –
Mr. Aditya Thackeray and his syndicate allegedly propagated a false narrative, which was published in multiple newspapers and broadcast on TV news channels on November 23, 2022, falsely claiming that the CBI had given a clean chit to the accused in the Disha Salian death case.
Following this, his party leader, Sanjay Raut, publicly demanded an apology from BJP, further reinforcing the misleading narrative.
However, the CBI later exposed the falsity of this claim and clarified that they had never conducted an investigation into Disha Salian’s case and had never given a clean chit to any accused or individual in the matter.
A news article published in the Times of India on November 24, 2022, reported this clarification, stating:
“CBI sources, however, said they had not registered any case or carried out any specific probe into Salian’s death. Sources, however, said as part of the probe into Rajput’s death they had conducted some inquiry as she was his talent manager, but did not arrive at any conclusion”.
Title: Maharashtra: ‘No CBI conclusion’ in Disha Salian death; Sena seeks BJP apology
