The Bombay High Court has raised serious questions over the Mumbai police inquiry into the 2020 death of Disha Salian, describing the years-long process as potentially futile and questioning the legal basis for reopening an Accidental Death Report inquiry.
The Bombay High Court has raised significant questions over the manner in which the Mumbai police investigated the death of Disha Salian, the former manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
During a hearing on Thursday, the court scrutinised the police inquiry into Salian’s death and questioned the legal basis for continuing or reopening proceedings under the framework of an Accidental Death Report (ADR).
Disha Salian died on June 8, 2020, after falling from the 14th floor of a residential building in Mumbai’s Malad area. The Mumbai police had initially registered an ADR and later concluded its inquiry.
However, the matter was subsequently reopened amid continuing public questions surrounding the case.
A division bench of Justices S V Kotwal and R R Bhonsale examined a petition filed by Disha Salian’s father, Satish Salian, who has sought further investigation into his daughter’s death.
The court questioned whether the inquiry carried out over several years had the required legal foundation and whether a formal criminal investigation could still be initiated if circumstances justified such a step.
Court Questions Legal Basis for Reopening ADR Inquiry
During the hearing, the High Court examined the inquiry conducted under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Section 174 deals with police inquiries in cases involving deaths occurring in circumstances such as suicide, accidents or situations that may appear suspicious.
Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray told the court that the initial report had been accepted in February 2021.
According to the submissions before the court, the inquiry was later reopened in December 2023 for reassessment following continuing public doubts about the case.
The High Court, however, questioned the legal basis for reopening an inquiry under Section 174 of the CrPC.
The bench observed that there appeared to be a “grey area” regarding the legal procedure followed.
The judges asked how the authorities had restarted the process and where the legal provision under Section 174 allowed for such a reopening.
The observation placed the focus on an important legal issue: whether the procedure followed by investigators was legally sustainable.
‘It Is All a Waste’: Court Questions Six-Year Inquiry
The bench also questioned the value and legal significance of an inquiry that had continued for several years.
The judges reportedly observed that if the inquiry lacked proper legal sanctity, the years spent conducting it could ultimately serve little purpose.
The court’s concerns centred on the limitations of an ADR inquiry.
An inquiry under Section 174 is not identical to a full criminal investigation conducted after the registration of an First Information Report (FIR).
The court noted that the evidentiary and investigative scope of an ADR inquiry can differ from that of a formal criminal case.
This distinction became central to the hearing as the judges examined whether the investigation into Salian’s death had been carried out through the most legally appropriate process.
High Court Says FIR Option Remains Open
The Bombay High Court made it clear that the possibility of registering an FIR and conducting a formal criminal investigation had not necessarily been closed.
The bench questioned why the option of a full investigation should be ruled out altogether if circumstances warranted one.
This observation is significant because the court was examining the legal process rather than making a determination on the competing allegations surrounding the case.
The High Court also noted that the police closure report could be challenged by Satish Salian before the appropriate court.
In other words, the legal avenues available to the petitioner may not be limited to the ADR inquiry alone.
The court’s focus remained on whether a legally valid process had been followed and whether further action could still be considered through the appropriate legal mechanism.
CCTV Footage and Witness Statements Examined
During the hearing, the High Court also looked at issues connected with the initial inquiry at the scene.
The bench noted that there was reportedly no direct CCTV footage covering the exact location from where Disha Salian is said to have fallen.
The court also examined discrepancies related to witness accounts concerning a locked door.
According to the observations made during the hearing, witnesses had reportedly referred to a locked door. However, the court noted that corresponding physical damage was not recorded in the panchnama.
A panchnama is an official record prepared by investigating authorities documenting observations and material found during a police inquiry or investigation.
The court’s observations did not amount to a finding regarding the cause of death. Instead, they highlighted questions about the documentation and completeness of the inquiry process.
Questions Raised Over Post-Mortem Examination
The High Court also examined issues related to the post-mortem conducted after Disha Salian’s death.
The bench noted that state guidelines require autopsies in cases of this nature to be conducted by two doctors.
According to the submissions and material discussed during the proceedings, the post-mortem examination in Salian’s case was reportedly conducted by one doctor.
Disha Salian died on June 8, 2020, and the post-mortem examination was conducted three days later, according to the report cited during the hearing.
The report recorded injuries to her head, hands, legs and chest. It identified the head injury as the fatal injury and also noted bleeding from the nose and mouth.
The post-mortem report, as cited in the proceedings, also recorded that there was no evidence of sexual assault or rape.
The High Court’s examination of the post-mortem procedure formed part of its broader scrutiny of whether the overall inquiry had been conducted in accordance with applicable requirements.
Father’s Delay in Approaching Court Discussed
The Maharashtra government also questioned why Satish Salian approached the court several years after his daughter’s death.
The state pointed out that the allegations currently being pursued had not been made immediately after the incident.
The High Court, however, said the emotional and psychological circumstances of a parent who had lost a child needed to be considered.
The bench observed that a father dealing with such a loss could have been in a state of shock and may not have been in the right frame of mind to take immediate legal action.
The court also drew attention to the fact that the authorities themselves had reopened the inquiry several years after the death.
It questioned why the possibility of a further investigation should be completely closed if the authorities had themselves found it necessary to reassess the matter.
Court Says Political Allegations Are Not Its Focus
The High Court also made it clear that its examination of the case was not centred on political allegations that have been linked to the matter in public discussions.
The judges said their concern was the legal process and the petition filed by Disha Salian’s father.
“We do not care about the politicians. We are concerned with his case. We are purely on the investigation. A father has lost his daughter,” the bench observed.
The statement underlined the court’s effort to separate political controversy from the legal questions before it.
The focus of the proceedings, the court indicated, was whether the death had been examined through a legally valid and appropriate process.
What the Court Hearing Means
The High Court’s observations do not, by themselves, determine the cause of Disha Salian’s death or establish the criminal responsibility of any person.
The proceedings instead focused on the manner in which the police inquiry was conducted and whether the legal framework used was adequate.
The central questions before the court include:
- Whether the ADR inquiry was legally reopened and continued in a valid manner.
- Whether gaps or discrepancies in the inquiry require further legal consideration.
- Whether the option of registering an FIR and conducting a formal investigation remains available.
- Whether the closure report can be challenged before the appropriate court.
These issues remain subject to further judicial proceedings and any subsequent action by the competent authorities.
Background of the Disha Salian Case
Disha Salian died after falling from a residential building in Mumbai on June 8, 2020.
The Mumbai police registered an Accidental Death Report and conducted an inquiry. Authorities later concluded that she died by suicide.
Her father, Satish Salian, subsequently challenged aspects of the handling of the case and approached the Bombay High Court, making serious allegations and seeking further investigation.
Those allegations are subject to legal scrutiny and should not be treated as established facts unless determined by a competent court or supported by a completed and legally valid investigation.
The Bombay High Court’s latest observations have shifted attention back to the process followed during the police inquiry and the legal status of the investigation.
The Bottom Line
The Bombay High Court has questioned the legal basis and value of the Mumbai police’s long-running inquiry into the death of Disha Salian.
The bench raised concerns about the reopening of the ADR inquiry, the absence of direct CCTV coverage at the precise location, witness statements, documentation and the post-mortem procedure discussed during the hearing.
At the same time, the court said the option of a formal FIR and investigation could remain open if legally justified.
The High Court also stressed that it was not concerned with political controversy surrounding the case and was focused instead on whether the death had been investigated through a lawful and appropriate process.
Further developments will depend on the court’s subsequent proceedings and any action taken by the relevant investigating or judicial authorities.
