The Bombay High Court has heard arguments in a petition filed by Satish Salian, father of late celebrity manager Disha Salian, who has sought further investigation into the circumstances surrounding his daughter’s death.
Advocate Nilesh Ojha, appearing for Satish Salian, said the matter was heard over two days and alleged that several aspects of the police investigation came under scrutiny during the proceedings. “This case was heard over two days—arguments were heard thoroughly on both the first day and today. It became clear in court that the documents prepared by the police were flawed,” Ojha said.
Lawyer Questions Section 174 CrPC Investigation
According to Ojha, the court examined whether the police could have proceeded with the matter as an accidental-death inquiry when the complaint made by Disha’s father alleged gang rape and murder. He said, “The Court clarified at the outset that it could not conduct an inquiry treating this as an accidental death; the complaint was regarding gang rape and murder.”
Ojha further challenged the police action under Section 174 of the CrPC, arguing that the provision could not be used to investigate allegations of murder and gang rape. “Under Section 174 of the CrPC, they have no authority to investigate a complaint of murder and gang rape,” he said.
‘If the Case Was Closed, Under Which Legal Provision Did They Reopen It?’
The lawyer also questioned what legal provision was used after the case was closed on February 4, 2021. Raising the issue before the court, Ojha said, “Regarding the case closure on February 4, 2021—if the case was closed then, under which legal provision did they reopen it?”
He further claimed that Supreme Court precedent had already addressed the issue of reopening such proceedings. “There is no provision for reopening such a case; the Supreme Court has clarified this, and the Court cited that Supreme Court judgment to them,” Ojha said.
According to him, the authorities were unable to identify a legal provision authorising the investigation when questioned during the hearing. “When asked to show the provision authorizing their investigation, they failed to do so, proving their actions wrong,” he alleged.
FIR Registration Becomes Key Issue
Ojha also argued that investigators cannot begin an investigation aimed at identifying accused persons and an alleged perpetrator without first registering an FIR. “Furthermore, an investigation to identify the accused and the perpetrator can only take place after an FIR is registered—a point established by Supreme Court precedents…” he said.
The FIR issue is central to Satish Salian’s petition, as he is seeking criminal action based on his allegations regarding his daughter’s death.
However, the allegations made by Satish Salian and his lawyer remain claims before the court and should not be treated as established facts or findings of guilt against any person.
Lawyer Points to Alleged Contradictions in Police Affidavit
Ojha also alleged that the account contained in the police affidavit differed from information discussed during the proceedings. He specifically referred to claims involving a police sub-inspector and whether Disha’s eyes were covered.
“The story presented in the affidavit differed; it claimed a PSI was calling from the location and that there was no cloth covering Disha’s eyes. The Court exposed this falsehood today…” Ojha said.
His remarks were part of his broader argument that there were inconsistencies in the material relied upon during the investigation.
Court Questions Injury Claims, Lawyer Says
Another issue raised during the hearing concerned the injuries Disha allegedly suffered after falling from the building.
According to Ojha, the court questioned aspects of the account that she had fallen from the 14th floor and landed face-down. He said, “The court pointed out that while the claim was that she fell from the 14th floor—landing face-down, resulting in a smashed face and lost teeth—the nose, the entire head, and the skull remained intact.”
Ojha added that the court questioned how the injuries could have occurred in the manner described. “The court questioned how only the teeth could be broken given those circumstances…” he said.
These arguments form part of the petitioner’s challenge to the circumstances surrounding Disha’s death and are not, by themselves, a judicial finding about the cause of death.
Lawyer Says Court Saw Grounds for CBI Probe
Ojha further claimed that the court found sufficient circumstances to raise suspicion and consider whether a CBI investigation should be ordered.
“The court observed that there were sufficient grounds to raise suspicion or to order a CBI investigation,” he said.
According to the lawyer, the government counsel was unable to provide a satisfactory response when questioned about the issue. “When asked for a response to this, the government counsel could not provide an answer; they merely kept recounting sensational stories rather than citing the law,” Ojha alleged.
He concluded by expressing confidence in the petitioner’s case, saying, “Therefore, in our view, the case is legally strong in our favor…”
What Is the Disha Salian Case?
Disha Salian, who worked as a celebrity manager in the entertainment industry, died in Mumbai in June 2020 after falling from a high-rise building.
Police initially treated the incident as an accidental-death inquiry and later concluded that she had died by suicide. A closure report was filed in February 2021.
Her father, Satish Salian, has disputed the circumstances surrounding her death and has alleged that she was gang-raped and murdered. He has approached the court seeking further investigation and has also sought a CBI probe.
The allegations have not been established in court, and no individual can be considered guilty solely on the basis of claims made in the petition or arguments.
Why the Latest Hearing Is Significant
The proceedings have brought several questions surrounding the original investigation back into focus, including the use of Section 174 CrPC, the absence of an FIR, the reported closure of the case in 2021 and the alleged basis for subsequently examining the matter again.
The court’s questions and observations during arguments should not be confused with a final judgment on the allegations. The legal outcome will depend on the court’s eventual order and the evidence and records before it.
