Berliner Boersenzeitung - Bombay High Court Questions Police Probe in Disha Salian Death Case

Advocate Nilesh Ojha, representing Satish Salian in the legal proceedings concerning his daughter Disha Salian’s death, stated that the Bombay High Court has raised significant questions regarding the legality and procedural integrity of the Mumbai Police investigation. Speaking to reporters following two days of arguments, Ojha indicated that the court had closely examined the documents and procedures utilized by law enforcement, questioning their foundational legal basis.

Ojha argued that the complaint before the court pertained to allegations of gang rape and murder, rather than an accidental death. He contended that the police lacked the authority to investigate such serious criminal charges under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a provision that specifically governs inquiries into unnatural or suspicious deaths. According to the advocate, the court questioned how the investigation had been conducted under this specific legal framework and referred to relevant Supreme Court judgments while deliberating on the matter.

Disha Salian, the former manager of Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput, died on June 8, 2020, after falling from the 14th floor of her apartment in the Malad area of Mumbai. While the police initially concluded through their inquiry that she had died by suicide, her father approached the High Court last year to challenge the Mumbai Police’s probe. Ojha also raised issues regarding the circumstances surrounding the closure of the case on February 4, 2021, asking under which legal provision the investigation was subsequently reopened, noting that no such provision had been presented to the court.

During the hearing, Ojha highlighted what he described as discrepancies between the government’s affidavit and other material evidence. He pointed to specific claims within the affidavit, including allegations that a police sub-inspector called from a particular location and questions regarding whether Salian’s eyes were covered at the time of death. The advocate stated that the court questioned these details during the hearing.

Ojha further argued that an investigation aimed at identifying an accused or alleged perpetrator can only commence after a First Information Report (FIR) is registered. He claimed that when the court asked authorities to identify the legal provision authorizing the investigation, they were unable to provide one. In his view, this demonstrated that the investigation had not followed the correct legal procedure.

The advocate also noted that the court questioned the account of Salian allegedly falling from the 14th floor. He stated that the court examined whether the reported injuries to her face, teeth, nose, and skull were consistent with the circumstances described by authorities. Ojha said the court sought clarification on how these specific injuries could have occurred in the manner described.

Regarding the potential for a new probe, Ojha claimed that the court observed there were sufficient grounds to raise suspicion and consider ordering a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe. He said government counsel was asked to respond to the concerns raised during the hearing but, according to him, did not provide a satisfactory legal explanation. Instead, Ojha alleged that the government side focused on the narrative surrounding the case rather than addressing the specific legal questions raised by the court.

These allegations and interpretations were presented by Ojha as part of the arguments made on behalf of Salian’s father and have not been independently established by external verification.

(L.Kaufmann--BBZ)