20 hrs ago
Bombay High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Disha Salian Death
Disha Salian died after falling from a high-rise building in Mumbai in June 2020.
Police first treated her death as an accident.
Her father later asked the court for a new investigation because he believed important questions had not been answered.
The Bombay High Court found several parts of the original investigation difficult to explain.
These included delays in collecting evidence and differences between medical and police records.
The court therefore ordered the CBI to begin a formal investigation.
Some public allegations have involved politicians and actors, but nobody has been found guilty in court.
The new investigation must determine what happened and whether any crime was committed.
The Bombay High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR and investigate Disha Salian’s 2020 death.
The order followed a petition by her father, Satish Salian, who sought a fresh investigation into a case initially recorded as an accidental death.
The court cited 10 concerns, including a delayed spot panchnama, unexplained police presence, injury inconsistencies and delayed seizure of Salian’s phone and laptop.
Mumbai Police maintained that its earlier investigation, including a Special Investigation Team review, found no criminal angle.
The court said its observations were not findings against any person and that the FIR does not establish that murder occurred.
- Who
- Disha Salian, her father Satish Salian, the Bombay High Court, Mumbai Police and the Central Bureau of Investigation are central to the case; public allegations also mentioned Aaditya Thackeray, Dino Morea and Sooraj Pancholi.
- What
- The Bombay High Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to register an FIR and conduct an independent investigation into Salian’s death.
- Where
- Salian fell from a high-rise residential building in Mumbai’s Malad area; the legal proceedings took place before the Bombay High Court.
- When
- Salian died during the night of June 8-9, 2020; the court issued its direction on September 2, 2026, according to the articles.
- Why
- The court said delays, discrepancies in records and unexplained evidence-handling issues created reasonable suspicions requiring a fresh investigation.
Fresh-Probe Advocates and Court Concerns
Police and Respondent Position
Whether the original inquiry was adequate
Fresh-Probe Advocates and Court Concerns
Satish Salian sought an FIR and fresh investigation, while the court said the police investigation raised more questions than it answered and identified reasonable suspicions.
Police and Respondent Position
Mumbai Police maintained that its earlier inquiry examined different angles and did not establish a criminal element.
Handling of evidence
Fresh-Probe Advocates and Court Concerns
The court questioned the delayed spot panchnama, the later seizure of the phone and laptop, unexplained police presence, blood evidence and mismatched forensic samples.
Police and Respondent Position
The police records and explanations were defended during proceedings, although the court found several discrepancies required independent investigation.
Allegations involving public figures
Fresh-Probe Advocates and Court Concerns
The petitioner’s case sought scrutiny of allegations involving Aaditya Thackeray, Dino Morea and Sooraj Pancholi, including phone records and other material.
Police and Respondent Position
Aaditya Thackeray denied the allegations, called the petition politically motivated and defamatory, and argued that the later accusations were based on hearsay; no named individual has been found guilty in relation to Salian’s death.
Key facts
- Initial classification
- Mumbai Police registered an Accidental Death Report rather than an FIR alleging a cognisable criminal offence.
- Court-ordered agency
- The Central Bureau of Investigation was directed to register an FIR and investigate independently in all aspects.
- Evidence concerns
- The court flagged 10 circumstances, including a delayed spot panchnama, unexplained police presence and discrepancies involving blood evidence and forensic samples.
- Digital evidence
- Salian’s phone and laptop were seized on June 17, 2020, eight days after the initial spot panchnama.
- Medical questions
- The court questioned whether the recorded injuries and amount of blood were consistent with the reported fall, saying expert assessment was needed.
- Police position
- Mumbai Police said its earlier investigation and Special Investigation Team findings were consistent with an accidental-death conclusion.
- Legal status
- The FIR begins a criminal investigation but is not proof that murder occurred or that any named person committed an offence.
Quotes
Bombay High Court bench
The bench of Justices Sarang V Kotwal and Ranjitsinha R Bhonsale hearing the case
“Then there was no occasion to ask the doctor,”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Bombay High Court Orders CBI FIR Probe Into Salian Death
Bombay High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Disha Salian Death
Bombay High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Disha Salian Death
Bombay High Court Directs CBI Probe Into Disha Salian Death
Bombay High Court Reserves Order in Disha Salian Death Probe
Bombay High Court Questions Disha Salian Death Probe
