A spot panchnama conducted more than nine hours after Disha Salian’s death, police officers seen at the building before the death was officially recorded, unexplained discrepancies in the accidental death report and forensic samples, and the delayed seizure of her phone and laptop were among 10 circumstances that the Bombay High Court on Wednesday said raised “reasonable suspicions” and required a fresh probe.
While directing the CBI to register an FIR and investigate the June 2020 death of Salian, former manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, a bench of Justices Sarang V Kotwal and Ranjitsinha R Bhonsale said the Mumbai Police investigation “raises more questions than it answers”.
The court stressed that these observations were made only while deciding whether an FIR and fresh investigation were warranted, and directed the CBI to investigate the case independently “in all aspects”
Police reached the spot “very shortly after the incident”, but the panchnama was conducted more than nine hours later. The HC said the delay, particularly in view of indications that police suspected foul play, and “quite significant” events prior to registration of ADR remained unexplained and raised “reasonable suspicion” about the initial investigation.
The death occurred at 2.25 am on June 9, while the ADR was registered at 3.07 am. Yet the ADR referred to her parents’ statements saying they had no suspicion, although her father reached the hospital only around 4 am. The HC said it was unexplained how his statement could have been referred to in the earlier ADR.
CCTV showed police personnel at the building between 1 am and 2.14 am. The HC found no explanation in the ADR or subsequent investigation about why they were there, who they were or what they did.
Two witnesses in ‘important’ statements said Salian had fallen on her face and blood was oozing from her head. Yet police did not collect blood-stained soil, while they recorded no bleeding injury to the head except an injury to the chin.
The HC found it “difficult to accept” that a fall from the 12th floor onto the face resulted in only a chin injury, with no fracture to the face, nose or jaw, despite skull and rib fractures. It said the issue would require expert assessment.
6. Chemical analyser flagged ‘less blood’
An Assistant Chemical Analyzer told police that articles from such a fall would be expected to contain more blood. But when the articles were opened, there was “less blood”. The HC noted that police themselves appeared unsure why Salian’s clothes had less blood when they questioned the postmortem doctor.
A witness said Salian had locked herself in a bedroom and the door was forced open. But the spot panchnama recorded no damage to the door or lock, which the HC found unexplained.
The postmortem report referred to specific swab samples, but the envelopes sent to the FSL contained slide smears. Doctors attributed this to a clerical error, but the HC called the discrepancy a “glaring feature”.
The HC questioned why police asked the postmortem doctor about the condition in which Salian was brought if police were already aware that her clothes had been seized. “Then there was no occasion to ask the doctor,” it said.
10. Phone, laptop seized eight days later
The court said Salian’s mobile phone and laptop were “important” evidence but were not seized during the June 9 spot panchnama. They were seized only on June 17 from her friend’s custody.
The HC said the circumstances, taken together, warranted registration of an FIR and a fresh investigation, particularly to ensure that evidence was not destroyed or lost with the passage of time.
However, it cautioned against treating its observations as findings against any individual. The CBI, it said, must determine during its investigation whether there are sufficient grounds to raise suspicion against anyone and whether an offence was committed.
Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions. Expertise & Authority Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage. Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in: Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include: Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes). Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty). Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict. Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability. Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges. Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More
