'What Stops You From Registering FIR When Someone Raises Suspicion?' Bombay High Court To Mumbai Police In Disha Salian Death Case

The Bombay High Court on Monday (August 3) questioned the Mumbai Police over its decision not to register a First Information Report (FIR) despite the suspicion of murder expressed by the father of Disha Salian, the former manager of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput.

A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande orally remarked, "when somebody is raising a suspicion what stops you from filing an FIR by following the due procedure?"

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Satish Salian, father of Disha Salian, seeking registration of an FIR alleging that his daughter was murdered, while the police have maintained that it was a case of suicide.

During the hearing, advocate Nilesh Ojha, appearing for Salian, submitted that despite the father's allegation that his daughter was murdered, the police registered only an Accidental Death Report (ADR) and concluded that it was a case of suicide.

Ojha also placed on record a report prepared by forensic experts engaged by the petitioner, which questioned the post-mortem findings. According to the report, despite Disha allegedly falling from the 14th floor of a high-rise building in suburban Malad, there were no corresponding injury marks on her body. The petitioner further alleged that photographs showing blood stains and injuries were "photoshopped."

The counsel further argued that according to the forensic experts, had Disha fallen from the 14th floor, her body would have landed directly below the building rather than around 10 feet away. He further submitted that while the police did not provide the autopsy report to the family for five years, details of the investigation were made available to the media.

When Ojha submitted that the relevant data was available in media reports, Justice Dangre orally remarked, "Mr counsel data must be available in the file no? Why media?"

In his submissions, Ojha alleged that the police did not show the dead body to his client and rather only a photo of the same was shown to him saying "you would not be able to see". He argued that while Sushant Singh Rajput's body was sent for autopsy within 24 hours of his death (on June 14), his client's daughter's (who was Rajput's manager) body was sent for Post Mortem only after three days. 

Having heard Ojha briefly, Justice Dangre opined that the petitioner must furnish a proper list of dates and circumstances which results in a cognisable offence so that it can accordingly ask the State to respond to each of the circumstance.

On the other hand, State's Chief Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray submitted that on June 8 2020, Disha participated in a small 'get-together' at a friend's home and that the statements of the friends have been recorded, which supports the case of the prosecution. He pointed out that after the initial outcome, there was a protest to findings and thus, again an enquiry was conduct, which was returned with a similar finding that this is not a murder case but a suicide. 

However, the bench sought to know why the State did not hand over a copy of the autopsy and the ADR report to Disha's father since last five years.

"What stops you from handing over the ADR Report to the father, especially when you are not registering FIR... Also, we just want to know when somebody is raising a suspicion what stops you from filing an FIR by following the due procedure?" Justice Dangre orally remarked. 

The bench then adjourned the matter for further hearing on August 24.

Case Title: Satish Salian vs State of Maharashtra (WP/1612/2025)