Disha Salian case: HC questions police over refusal to register FIR despite murder allegations

After examining photographs placed before it, the bench also noted that there were no visible injuries on Salian’s body despite falling from the 14th floor of a building

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday questioned the Mumbai police over its refusal to register an FIR based on deceased celebrity manager Disha Salian’s father’s allegations that his daughter was gang-raped and murdered and did not die by suicide, as claimed by the police.

Disha Salian, whose clients included actor Sushant Singh Rajput, died after falling from the 14th floor of a residential building in Malad on June 8, 2020.

“If someone is raising suspicion that this is not a case of suicide but murder, what stops you from filing an FIR?” a division bench of justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande asked the police.

After examining photographs placed before it, the bench also noted that there were no visible injuries on Salian’s body despite falling from the 14th floor of a building. “There’s nothing, no injuries shown in the pictures. Someone fell down from the 14th floor, and there are no injuries?” the court said.

Disha Salian, whose clients included actor Sushant Singh Rajput, died after falling from the 14th floor of a residential building in Malad on June 8, 2020. While the Mumbai police registered an accidental death report (ADR) and concluded there was no evidence of foul play, Salian’s death became the subject of intense speculation and controversy after Rajput died by suicide six days later.

In his petition, Satish Salian said that investigating officers had not shared documents and articles included in the final investigation report with him, such as material collected by police during the probe, photographs, videos, panchnamas, CCTV footage, call detail records, forensic reports, post-mortem report, and Disha’s mobile phone and laptop.

During the hearing on Monday, Salian’s lawyer, advocate Nilesh Ojha, argued that the police were legally bound to register an FIR once a complaint alleging murder was filed. However, he said, the concerned authorities concluded that there was neither rape nor murder and closed the case without furnishing the investigation report to the family for five years.

“How grave dishonesty is this? The police have created their own story that Disha died by falling from the 14th floor and that the dead body was found 10 feet away from the building. We got it analysed and found out that the body should have fallen straight down rather than 10 feet away. It’s clear their report is false,” Ojha said. He added that the initial photographs shown to the family indicated no injuries on her body, but the “police then fabricated the photos to show head injuries”.

Ojha further informed the court that, as per the procedure, the authorities are bound to conduct a postmortem of a body within 24 hours. However, the postmortem was conducted three days later, and the procedure was delayed because of the Covid 19 pandemic, he said. “Sushant Singh Rajput died on June 14, while Disha died on June 8. His body was taken for postmortem the very same day, but Disha’s postmortem was delayed by three days,” he added.

On the other hand, public prosecutor Shishir Hiray told the court that the case was treated as an accidental death and that the police had conducted inquiries twice. Both times, he said, it was concluded that it was a case of suicide.

The court, however, observed that if a postmortem has been conducted, the report will indicate the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. “Prepare a list of documents and circumstances which resulted in the cognisable offence. If the post-mortem was done, it should show something. We want to see what are the nature of injuries that are described,” the court said.

It also asked the police why the investigation report was not provided to Disha’s parents if they had decided to close the case. “If you are not registering an FIR, what stops you from giving the report to the parents?” the bench said.

The bench then stated that it would seek specific responses from the state on every aspect once Satish Salian submits the required documents, and posted the matter for further hearing on August 24.