The Bombay High Court on Wednesday ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the death of celebrity manager Disha Salian in 2020 [Satish Salian v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.].A Division Bench of Justices Sarang V Kotwal and Ranjitsinha R Bhonsale directed the agency to register a First Information Report (FIR) based on the complaint filed by her father, Satish Salian.The Court further directed the Joint Director of the CBI (Mumbai Region) to appoint a senior, suitably experienced officer to record the petitioner’s statement and register the FIR.The Court clarified that the direction to register an FIR does not imply a finding of guilt against anyone. "Nobody shall be treated as an accused unless, in the opinion of the investigating officer, there are sufficient grounds to raise reasonable suspicion against him, depending on the material collected during the investigation," the Bench said..Nobody shall be treated as an accused unless, in the opinion of the investigating officer, there are sufficient grounds to raise reasonable suspicion against himBombay High Court.Disha Salian died on June 8, 2020, after falling from the 14th floor of a residential building in the Mumbai suburbs. Satish Salian stated that the Mumbai Police had initially filed an Accidental Death Report (ADR) in 2021, concluding that her death was a suicide. However, two years later, the authorities reopened the case for reassessment following public speculation.He approached the High Court in 2024, alleging that he had been misled and pressured by authorities and politicians to accept the suicide narrative. In his petition, Salian sought an independent CBI probe and registration of an FIR against several individuals, including MLA Aaditya Thackeray, alleging gang rape and murder. He further alleged that key forensic and investigative documents were withheld from the family..The High Court today accepted the plea and ordered the concerned police station in Mumbai to hand over all necessary case papers and physical articles to the designated CBI investigating officer."The investigation was carried out in two stages and it went on for about six years. The investigation carried out by the police raises more questions than it answers. Therefore, investigation by CBI is necessary in this case," the court held. .The investigation carried out by the police raises more questions than it answers. Therefore, investigation by CBI is necessary.Bombay High Court.It directed CBI to conduct an investigation into all aspects surrounding the death. It clarified that if an offence is made out, the CBI must file an appropriate report before the competent court. Conversely, if the probe reveals no offence, a closure report must be filed."The Investigating Agency shall interact with Salian and his family with sensitivity as they will have to remember the tragic incident in detail. At the same time care should be taken that no innocent person is harassed and the offenders, if any, are made to face the trial," the order states..Care should be taken that no innocent person is harassed and the offenders, if any, are made to face the trialBombay High Court.During the hearing which happened earlier, the Bench had questioned the legal validity of conducting a prolonged inquiry under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) without registering an FIR under Section 154 CrPC.“You are practically conducting an investigation. Section 174 does not give you that power to issue clean chits or summaries. When belated allegations were made, authorities should have registered an offence, investigated, and reached a conclusion with legal sanctity,” the Court had remarked during the hearing..Chief Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray defended the procedure, submitting that witness statements and forensic reports ruled out foul play or sexual assault. He added that while the initial ADR inquiry was closed within three months, it was reopened in 2023 following social media claims. The Court expressed strong reservations about the lack of statutory backing for such extended inquiries. “Under what provision are you conducting an inquiry after three months when there is no provision under CrPC? Section 174 in this situation has no meaning at all, because it cannot give a clean chit to anyone," the Court added. .Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola appeared for Thackeray who had intervened in the matter. Pasbola argued that the writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable and Salian ought to have exhausted alternate statutory remedies before approaching the High Court. He further said that the petition stemmed from political rivalry against Thackeray and that Salian was “being used as a tool” and was “piggybacking on a complaint that is motivated and based on irresponsible reporting by the media.”The Court emphasised that its primary concern remained the sanctity of legal procedure to ensure true closure for the family.Hence, it ordered CBI to investigate the matter..Advocates Nilesh Ojha and Abhishek Mishra appeared for Salian..[Read order]
