Bombay High Court: Disha Salian ADR Inquiry Futile, Cites Gaps

• The Bombay High Court questioned the prolonged Accidental Death Report (ADR) inquiry into Disha Salian's 2020 death, calling it potentially 'futile'.
• Salian's father alleges gang-rape and murder, seeking a fresh investigation and FIR, while police concluded suicide.
• The court highlighted several investigation gaps, including lack of direct CCTV footage, conflicting evidence on a locked door, and a post-mortem conducted by a single doctor against guidelines.
• The court scrutinized the evidentiary value of a Section 174 CrPC inquiry (now Section 194 BNSS) compared to a full criminal investigation and questioned why an FIR was not registered despite the father's suspicions.
• The Maharashtra government defended the probe, citing evidence supporting suicide and questioning the father's delay in approaching the court.

The Bombay High Court has raised significant concerns regarding the investigation into the 2020 death of Disha Salian, former manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, describing the prolonged inquiry as potentially “futile.”

The Bombay High Court has raised significant concerns regarding the investigation into the 2020 death of Disha Salian, former manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, describing the prolonged inquiry as potentially “futile.” The court's observations came during a hearing on August 27, 2026, on a plea filed by Salian's father, Satish Salian, who is seeking a fresh investigation into his daughter's demise. Salian died on June 8, 2020, after falling from a residential building in Mumbai's Malad area, with Mumbai Police initially registering an Accidental Death Report (ADR) and concluding it was a suicide.

Mr. Salian has consistently alleged that his daughter was gang-raped and murdered, advocating for the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and a comprehensive new probe. The court specifically questioned the continued reliance on the ADR inquiry and the legal basis for reopening it years after its initial conclusion in February 2021. It also scrutinized several gaps in the evidence collected by Mumbai Police, including the absence of direct CCTV footage showing the precise location of Salian's fall and conflicting accounts regarding a locked door at the premises, where witness statements mentioned a locked door but the panchnama did not record corresponding physical damage.

Further procedural irregularities were highlighted concerning the post-mortem examination. The court noted that Maharashtra guidelines mandate autopsies in such circumstances to be conducted by two doctors, yet Salian's post-mortem was performed by only one. The High Court had previously questioned Mumbai Police for its failure to register an FIR despite Mr. Salian's persistent suspicions about his daughter's death. Additionally, the court queried why the ADR and post-mortem reports had not been provided to him for several years.

The original investigation into Disha Salian's death was conducted under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a provision now superseded by Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which outlines procedures for police officers to investigate and report on unnatural or suspicious deaths. The court critically examined how a Section 174 inquiry could be reopened and continued for several years, questioning whether such an inquiry could provide a legally sustainable closure to the case.

A central point of contention was the evidentiary value of an ADR inquiry compared to a regular criminal investigation initiated by an FIR. The court noted that statements recorded during a Section 174 inquiry have inherent limitations and questioned why the possibility of a formal investigation via an FIR had been effectively dismissed. The Maharashtra government, however, has defended the investigation, asserting that witness statements, forensic material, and other investigative records do not indicate foul play or sexual assault, thereby supporting the original conclusion of suicide. The State also raised questions about the delay in Mr. Salian approaching the court with his allegations of murder.

The Bombay High Court's strong observations underscore the critical procedural distinctions and evidentiary limitations inherent in Section 174 CrPC (ADR) inquiries when contrasted with full criminal investigations initiated by an FIR. By labeling the prolonged ADR inquiry as 'futile,' the court emphasizes the necessity for timely and thorough criminal investigations, particularly in cases involving suspicious deaths where allegations of foul play exist. This ruling highlights the potential for challenging the legal sustainability of extended ADRs, especially when procedural gaps or suspicions of criminal activity are present.

This judicial scrutiny serves as a significant reminder of the importance of prompt FIR registration in suspicious death cases and the need for adherence to established investigative protocols, such as proper post-mortem procedures. The court's focus on the limited evidentiary value of ADR statements, coupled with its questioning of the Mumbai Police's FIR registration delay and the overall Disha Salian death investigation gaps, signals a clear judicial expectation for more robust and transparent investigative practices. The ongoing judicial consideration of these allegations and the validity of the Section 194 BNSS inquiry will have broader implications for how suspicious death cases are handled in the future.

This ruling clarifies the procedural distinctions and evidentiary limitations of Section 174 CrPC (ADR) inquiries versus full criminal investigations (FIRs) in suspicious death cases. Lawyers should note the court's emphasis on timely FIR registration and the potential for challenging the legal sustainability of prolonged ADRs, especially when procedural gaps or suspicions of foul play exist, impacting strategy for clients involved in or affected by such investigations.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law