Bombay HC: Reserves Decision on Disha Salian FIR Against Aaditya Thackeray

• The Bombay High Court has reserved its order on a plea seeking a fresh probe and FIR into the 2020 death of celebrity manager Disha Salian.
• Satish Salian, Disha's father, filed the plea, alleging sexual assault and murder and seeking an FIR against Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray and others.
• The court critically questioned the prolonged Accidental Death Report inquiry under Section 174 CrPC, now Section 198 BNSS, stating it cannot substitute a full criminal investigation or provide a 'clean chit.'
• Aaditya Thackeray's lawyer argued the plea was politically motivated, claiming Salian's father was being used as a 'tool' by rivals.
• The Maharashtra government defended its initial investigation, asserting that collected material did not indicate foul play and the death resulted from a fall.

The Bombay High Court underscored that an inquiry under Section 174, designed to ascertain the apparent cause of death, cannot serve as a 'clean chit' in cases involving allegations of cognisable offenses.

The Bombay High Court has reserved its decision on a petition requesting the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and a new investigation into the 2020 death of celebrity manager Disha Salian. The plea, filed by Satish Salian, Disha's father, specifically seeks an FIR against Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray and other individuals, alleging that his daughter was sexually assaulted and murdered. The proceedings before a division bench comprising Justices Sarang V Kotwal and Ranjitsinha Bhonsale involved extensive arguments from all parties before the matter was set aside for a final order.

Disha Salian's death occurred on June 8, 2020, when she fell from a high-rise building in Mumbai’s Malad area. This incident took place just days before actor Sushant Singh Rajput, for whom Salian had previously worked as a manager, was found dead at his Bandra residence on June 14, 2020. The ongoing legal challenge by Satish Salian centers on the adequacy of the initial police inquiry and the persistent doubts surrounding the circumstances of his daughter's demise, pushing for a more comprehensive criminal investigation.

A central point of contention during the Bombay High Court's hearing was the prolonged inquiry conducted under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which has since been replaced by Section 198 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This legal provision governs inquiries into unnatural or suspicious deaths, primarily focusing on determining the apparent cause of death. The bench critically questioned whether such an inquiry could legitimately serve as a substitute for a full-fledged criminal investigation, especially when serious allegations of cognisable offenses, such as sexual assault and murder, are raised.

The court observed that a Section 174 inquiry is fundamentally limited to ascertaining the immediate cause of death and cannot, by its very nature, provide a definitive 'clean chit' to any individual in connection with allegations of criminal activity. The judges expressed concern over why an Accidental Death Report (ADR) inquiry was allowed to continue for years without an FIR being registered, particularly if uncertainties about the death's circumstances persisted. While emphasizing that it was not making a conclusive determination on whether rape or murder occurred, the court underscored that its examination focused on whether the presented material and allegations warranted the registration of an FIR and a proper investigation, viewing the matter from the perspective of a father seeking investigation and closure.

During the court proceedings, Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola, representing Aaditya Thackeray, vigorously opposed Satish Salian's plea. Pasbola contended that the petition was politically motivated, asserting that Salian's father was being utilized as a 'tool' by political adversaries aiming to discredit Thackeray. He argued that the allegations lacked substantive evidence, being primarily based on media reports and hearsay, and characterized the petition as a mala fide exercise driven by ulterior motives. Thackeray has consistently denied the accusations against him, maintaining that the legal actions are an attempt to damage his reputation.

Conversely, the Maharashtra government, through Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray, defended the thoroughness of the initial investigation into Disha Salian's death. Hiray presented that the evidence collected by the police, including spot panchnamas and witness statements, did not indicate any foul play. He also referenced the statement provided by Disha’s fiancé, Rohan Roy. The state has consistently maintained that Disha Salian's death was the result of a fall from the building and that the investigation did not uncover any evidence to support claims of murder or other criminal activities. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) had also been constituted by the Maharashtra government to look into the matter.

This case highlights the Bombay High Court's scrutiny of prolonged Section 174 CrPC inquiries (now Section 194 BNSS) in suspicious death cases, questioning their adequacy in lieu of a full criminal investigation. Lawyers should monitor the final order as it could set a precedent for challenging police procedures and mandating FIR registration when allegations of cognizable offenses persist, impacting how they advise clients on police investigations.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law