Mumbai: Observing that the June 8, 2020, death of celebrity manager Disha Salian in suburban Mumbai had “many glaring discrepancies” which necessitated proper and substantive investigation, Bombay High Court directed Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a first information report (FIR) and probe the case thoroughly. No one is to be named as an accused without sufficient grounds, HC clarified.“Suspicious circumstances” surrounding the death necessitate the registration of an FIR, an HC bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and RR Bhonsale held. But HC said it has “not made any observations against any particular individual.”“The investigation carried out by the police raises more questions than it answers. Therefore, an investigation by CBI is necessary,” HC said. A delayed spot panchanama nine hours later, on June 9, has “indications that the police were not treating the case as an accidental death case but they were suspecting foul play,” HC observed.HC had last Friday reserved for orders her father’s plea to probe the death as a murder, not suicide or an accident. The father’s counsel, Nilesh Ojha, had cited “suspicious circumstances” to seek a proper CBI probe as he argued her death was “the outcome of a deep rooted conspiracy involving powerful people.”Disha (28) died by suicide and there was no foul play by anyone, the state submitted through its public prosecutor Shishir Hiray.Disha was a celebrity manager. She worked briefly with the late film actor Sushant Singh Rajput, who died just days later that month on June 14, aged 34, in his Bandra flat. Her father claimed both deaths were “interlinked”. He sought registration of an FIR.Interact with the family with sensitivity, HC directed CBI on Wednesday. But simultaneously, “care should be taken that no innocent person is harassed and the offenders, if any, are made to face the trial,” the judgement authored by Justice Kotwal said.The father made allegations against Aditya Thackeray of Shiv Sena (UBT). Thackeray intervened and through his senior counsel Sudeep Pasbola said the allegations against him were “motivated with malafide intentions” to damage his reputation when he is “neither directly nor indirectly connected with any alleged offence.” Pasbola expressed sympathy for Disha’s father but said CBI cannot be directed to do a roving inquiry.The HC ruling made no reference to any names and directed: “Nobody shall be treated as an accused unless in the opinion of the Investigating Officer there are sufficient grounds to raise reasonable suspicion against him depending on the material collected during the investigation.”The state and Pasbola said the father can file a private complaint before a magistrate for police to probe. HC said with two probes that went on for almost six years, it would be improper to ask Salian to now seek a police probe order from a magistrate. HC said Ojha is right the magistrate has no power to direct CBI to investigate. HC held that the police had sufficient opportunity, but didn’t register an FIR to conduct a thorough probe, instead carried on a probe “inadequate and insufficient” in the facts of the case.HC referred to CCTV footage showing police officers around 1 am on June 9 and said, “There is no reference as to who were those police officers and what investigation they had carried out there and why there is no such reference in the ADR or in the following probe.”HC clarified, “We have not made any observations against any particular individual. That would be strictly within the realm of the investigation.”Kuldeep Patil, CBI counsel, informed the court that the agency had never thus far probed Disha’s death.Both Hiray and Pasbola said the father can go with a private complaint to a magistrate first.HC, on being shown documents including the panchanama, photographs of the body, and other details from the inquiry so far, raised questions on various aspects it found “suspicious” including whether injuries were consistent with a fall from such a height and details regarding clothes.Hiray argued that the injuries included a skull fracture consistent with such a fall. He also said neither parent raised “any suspicion” in their statements during two probes.“After serious consideration to the arguments and the material, we are of the opinion that the matter requires investigation; and hence we are not making any observations regarding the allegations made by the petitioner,” HC clarified.The police conducted a probe under Section 174 of the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), a provision with “limited scope,” HC said. The section is meant to find ‘cause of death’ when a death is reported as a suicide and an ADR is registered. Ojha argued that for any suspicious death, the police were mandated to register an FIR and then investigate.“A probe investigation under Section 174 of the CrPC at the earliest to see whether registration of FIR is necessary,” HC said, “…to ensure that the evidence, if any, is not destroyed or doesn’t disappear due to passage of time. The investigation cannot go on for an inordinately long time. In the present case, the investigation was carried out in two stages and it went on for about six years. This is not the object of investigation under Section 174 of CrPC,” the judgement stressed.A mere inquiry in an ADR is inadequate in this case, HC too said, observing, “The case requires substantive investigation of a cognisable offence.”CBI shall have full freedom to investigate all aspects of this case, HC said.If the probe reveals no offence, CBI is to file a closure report, HC directed, with Salian having a right to protest such closure.
