Bombay High Court: CBI Registers Disha Salian FIR After Court Order

• The CBI registered an FIR on September 14, 2026, to investigate the 2020 death of Disha Salian, following a Bombay High Court directive.
• The High Court questioned the Mumbai Police's handling of the case for six years, particularly the absence of a formal criminal investigation despite suspicious allegations.
• Justices S V Kotwal and Ranjitsinha Bhonsale clarified that an Accidental Death Report inquiry under CrPC Section 174 (now BNSS Section 194) cannot substitute for an FIR when cognizable offenses are alleged.
• Disha Salian's father, Satish Salian, had petitioned for an FIR and a fresh investigation, alleging sexual assault and murder.
• The court instructed the CBI to assign a senior officer to the probe and to file a summary report if no criminality is found, while not concluding guilt at this stage.

The High Court underscored that an inquiry into an unnatural death, such as one conducted under Section 174 of the CrPC or its successor, Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cannot serve as a substitute for a comprehensive criminal investigation when allegations of cognizable offenses are present.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officially registered a First Information Report (FIR) on September 14, 2026, concerning the 2020 death of Disha Salian. This significant development comes twelve days after the Bombay High Court issued a directive on September 2, 2026, instructing the CBI to open a formal case and thoroughly investigate the circumstances surrounding Salian's demise. The High Court's intervention stemmed from its critical assessment of how the Mumbai Police had managed the six-year-old case, particularly noting the prolonged absence of a criminal FIR.

Disha Salian, who was 28 years old and had worked as a celebrity manager, including for the late actor Sushant Singh Rajput, died on June 8, 2020. Her death occurred after she fell from a high-rise residential building located in Mumbai's Malad area. Initially, the Mumbai Police had recorded an Accidental Death Report (ADR) in connection with the incident. Notably, actor Sushant Singh Rajput passed away six days later at his Bandra residence.

The Bombay High Court's division bench, comprising Justices S V Kotwal and Ranjitsinha Bhonsale, played a pivotal role in compelling the CBI investigation. During its proceedings, the court rigorously questioned the Mumbai Police's handling of the Disha Salian death investigation over several years, specifically why the matter remained under an Accidental Death Report inquiry without an FIR, despite allegations that raised suspicions about the incident.

A central focus of the High Court's deliberations was the critical distinction between an inquiry into an unnatural death and a full-fledged criminal investigation. The bench specifically questioned whether an inquiry conducted under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which now corresponds to Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), could adequately substitute for an investigation into a cognizable offense. The High Court firmly observed that such an inquiry is insufficient to provide a 'clean chit' when allegations of a cognizable offense are present, emphasizing the necessity of a proper criminal probe. The court clarified that its directive was not to conclude that rape or murder had occurred, but rather to determine if the existing allegations and material warranted the registration of an FIR and a thorough investigation.

The CBI probe was initiated following a petition filed by Disha Salian's father, Satish Salian, who sought the registration of an FIR and a fresh investigation into his daughter's death. Mr. Salian alleged that his daughter had been sexually assaulted and murdered, urging for an investigation by a central agency. The Maharashtra government, in turn, defended the Mumbai Police's initial investigation, presenting various materials including spot panchnamas, witness statements, forensic evidence, CCTV footage, and mobile call records. The state maintained that this evidence did not indicate any foul play and also referenced the statement provided by Salian's fiancé, Rohan Roy.

Prior to the High Court's directive, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) had also examined the case. In July 2025, the SIT informed the High Court that it had found no foul play in Salian's death, though its investigation was still ongoing at that time. The petition for a fresh probe faced opposition from senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola, who represented Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray. Thackeray's name had been implicated in some allegations related to the case. Pasbola contended that the petition was politically motivated, asserting that Salian's father was being used as a tool by political opponents aiming to target Thackeray, who has consistently denied the allegations.

In its order, the Bombay High Court issued specific directives for the CBI's investigation into the Disha Salian death case. The court mandated that a senior and experienced officer be assigned to lead the probe, ensuring a thorough and impartial inquiry. Furthermore, the High Court stipulated that no individual should be treated as an accused unless sufficient material evidence emerges against them during the course of the investigation.

The court also provided clear instructions for the conclusion of the CBI's work, stating that if the investigation ultimately does not uncover any criminality, the CBI is required to file an appropriate summary report before the competent court. This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that suspicious death cases are subjected to proper criminal investigations rather than being confined to preliminary inquiries, especially when allegations of cognizable offenses are raised.

This ruling clarifies the distinction between an Accidental Death Report (ADR) inquiry under CrPC/BNSS and a full criminal investigation, emphasizing that an ADR cannot substitute for an FIR when cognizable offenses are suspected. Lawyers and compliance officers should note this precedent for challenging police handling of suspicious death cases and ensuring proper criminal investigation, rather than merely an inquiry.

Source: Original reporting via Lawbeat News Desk