Bombay High Court Orders CBI FIR and Fresh Probe Into Disha Salian’s Death; Finds Six-Year Police Inquest Inadequate Amid Glaring Suspicious Circumstances and Unexplained Discrepancies
Bombay High Court Orders CBI Investigation Into Disha Salian’s Death; Says Six-Year Section 174 Inquiry Raised More Questions Than Answers and FIR Is Necessary
Facts
The petition was filed by Satish Salian, father of Disha Salian, challenging the manner in which the circumstances surrounding his daughter’s death on the night of 8–9 June 2020 had been investigated. The principal relief considered by the Bombay High Court was his request to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The petitioner alleged that his daughter’s death was not an accidental death or suicide but involved a larger conspiracy. The Court was careful to state that it was not expressing any opinion on those allegations or against any individual, since those matters would have to be examined by the investigating agency.
Mumbai Police had registered ADR No. 85/2020 and conducted proceedings under Section 174 CrPC. The first inquiry concluded that Disha had died by suicide. In December 2023, following directions from the Maharashtra Government, the matter was reopened and another inquiry was conducted, again under Section 174 CrPC. That second exercise continued until April 2026 and reached the same conclusion.
Thus, the police had conducted two rounds of inquiry spread over nearly six years, but no FIR for a cognizable offence had been registered.
The High Court ultimately found that the Section 174 inquiry mechanism was inadequate in the peculiar facts of the case and that a substantive investigation following registration of an FIR was necessary.
Issues
The principal issues were:
- whether an inquiry under Sections 174–176 CrPC was sufficient to investigate the circumstances surrounding Disha Salian’s death;
- whether the material already collected disclosed circumstances requiring registration of an FIR and investigation of a cognizable offence;
- whether the petitioner should first be relegated to the Magistrate under the corresponding BNSS provisions;
- whether the extraordinary circumstances justified transfer of the investigation to the CBI; and
- whether the CBI investigation should additionally remain under direct supervision of the High Court.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Satish Salian contended that the scope of an investigation under Section 174 CrPC is extremely limited. Its object is principally to ascertain the apparent cause of an unnatural death and not to carry out a full investigation into who committed an offence, how it was committed and the surrounding criminal circumstances.
According to him, once circumstances suggesting a cognizable offence emerged, the police were required to register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC and undertake a substantive investigation culminating in a police report under Section 173.
He argued that the police nevertheless continued treating the matter as an accidental-death inquiry for years, despite several serious discrepancies.
He also opposed being relegated to the Magistrate under the BNSS equivalent of Section 156(3) CrPC. His submission was that a Magistrate cannot direct a CBI investigation, whereas the circumstances now required an independent central agency.
The petitioner relied principally upon Kishwar Jahan v. State of West Bengal, Param Bir Singh v. State of Maharashtra and Vinod Kumar Pandey v. Seesh Ram Saini.
State’s Arguments
The State contended that the police had conducted extensive inquiries twice.
According to the State, statements of Disha’s friends and family, postmortem material and chemical-analysis reports supported the conclusion that she had died by suicide and that no evidence of foul play had emerged.
The State emphasized statements suggesting that Disha had consumed alcohol and had been depressed because of failed professional deals, interpersonal issues and other personal circumstances. It therefore argued that no CBI investigation was warranted.
Alternatively, the State argued that Satish Salian had an efficacious remedy of approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate under the BNSS and requesting investigation.
Intervener’s Arguments
The intervener supported the State’s objection and contended that the petition should not be used to target individuals for political or reputational purposes.
It was argued that allegations against the intervener were based upon media reports and hearsay and that the CBI could not be directed to conduct a roving inquiry.
Reliance was placed upon Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra, State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
Analysis of the Law
Scope of Section 174 CrPC Is Limited
The High Court extensively examined Sections 174, 175 and 176 CrPC.
It held that an inquiry under Section 174 is directed towards determining the apparent cause of death, including injuries found on the body and the apparent manner in which they were inflicted.
Such an inquest is fundamentally different from a full investigation of a cognizable offence conducted under Sections 154 to 173 CrPC.
The Court stressed that the report contemplated by Section 174 is forwarded to the District or Sub-Divisional Magistrate and is not equivalent to a police report submitted to a Judicial Magistrate under Section 173 after investigation of a cognizable offence.
It consequently held that the Section 174 mechanism “cannot be equated with the investigation in a cognizable offence”.
Section 174 Does Not Permit Endless “Further Investigation”
The Court observed that unlike Section 173(8), Section 174 contains no provision contemplating repeated or continuing further investigation.
An inquest must be completed promptly so that authorities can determine whether circumstances require registration of an FIR.
The Court found the fact that Disha’s Section 174 inquiry continued in two phases for almost six years fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose of an inquest.
Suspicious Circumstances Identified by the Court
The Court repeatedly cautioned that these circumstances were not findings of guilt or findings that Disha was murdered. They were identified only to decide whether an FIR and substantive investigation were required.
Among the circumstances specifically flagged were:
1. Delayed Spot Panchnama
The Court noted material indicating that police officers had reached the building shortly after the incident and had inspected the flat, including examining Rohan Rai.
Despite that, the formal spot panchnama was conducted only around 9:40–9:45 a.m., more than nine hours after the incident.
The delay remained unexplained.
2. Timing of ADR and Parents’ Statements
ADR No. 85/2020 was registered at 3:07 a.m.
Yet it reportedly referred to statements of Disha’s parents stating that they suspected nobody.
Satish Salian’s own statement, however, showed that he reached Shatabdi Hospital only around 4:00 a.m.
The Court considered it unexplained how a statement apparently recorded after 4:00 a.m. could be referred to in an ADR registered at 3:07 a.m.
3. Police Presence Before ADR
CCTV material indicated police presence in the building and Flat No. 1202 at approximately 12:59 a.m., 1:33 a.m. and 2:14 a.m.
However, the subsequent ADR and investigative record did not satisfactorily explain who those officers were, why they were present or what investigation they conducted.
4. Blood at the Fall Site
Witnesses stated that Disha had fallen on her face and blood was oozing from her head.
Nevertheless, the police did not recover blood-stained earth from the location, and the documented injuries did not correspond straightforwardly with those accounts.
5. Nature of Injuries
The postmortem recorded multiple injuries, skull fracture and fractured ribs.
However, the High Court found it difficult, subject expressly to expert examination, to reconcile an alleged face-first fall from the 12th floor with the absence of fractures to facial bones, including the mandible and nasal bone, and the relatively small external injury on the chin.
6. Forensic Concern About Limited Blood
The Assistant Chemical Analyzer itself raised a written query because, given the history of a fall from the 12th floor, more blood was expected on the articles, whereas comparatively little was found.
The police thereafter sought a medical explanation for this discrepancy.
7. Swab/Smear Discrepancy
The forensic record also reflected confusion regarding whether vaginal and anal swabs or smears had been collected.
The Medical Officer later stated that smears, rather than swabs, had been taken and that the forwarding form contained an inadvertent error. The Court regarded this discrepancy as relevant in light of the allegations requiring investigation.
8. Question About the Body Being Nude
The police themselves wrote to the doctor asking why the body was nude, even though police records showed that Disha’s clothes had already been seized and identified.
The Court regarded this as another unexplained inconsistency.
9. Delayed Seizure of Laptop and Mobile Phone
Disha’s laptop and mobile phone were not seized during the initial spot panchnama.
They were taken from Rohan Rai only on 17 June 2020, several days after the death. The Court considered these devices potentially important evidence.
Taken together, the Court held that there were “too many glaring discrepancies” and that a proper cognizable-offence investigation should have been undertaken.
Precedent Analysis
Pedda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1975) 4 SCC 153
The Supreme Court held that Section 174 proceedings exist only to determine whether death was suspicious or unnatural and its apparent cause. Questions concerning precisely who assaulted the deceased and under what circumstances fall outside an inquest’s limited scope.
Kodali Purnachandra Rao v. Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh, (1975) 2 SCC 570
The judgment was relied upon regarding the statutory requirement that an inquest be held at the relevant place and the obligation to obtain medical examination where the cause of death is doubtful.
Kishwar Jahan v. State of West Bengal, 2008 SCC OnLine Cal 564
This decision was central to the High Court’s reasoning.
It held that once an inquest is completed, Sections 174–175 do not contemplate a prolonged further inquiry. Where suspicious circumstances indicate a possible cognizable offence, the appropriate course is registration of an FIR and investigation under the ordinary criminal-investigation provisions.
The Bombay High Court found that principle particularly relevant because the local police inquiry here continued for years without FIR registration.
Param Bir Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 516
The petitioner relied upon this decision in support of the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction to direct an independent CBI investigation rather than mechanically relegating a complainant to the Magistrate.
Romila Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753
This judgment arose in the context of the petitioner’s objection to intervention and questions concerning the entitlement of individuals to insist upon or resist a particular investigating agency.
The High Court ultimately avoided making any finding against any individual and left the CBI completely free to determine whether anybody should be treated as an accused.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that Mumbai Police had been afforded sufficient opportunity over nearly six years to investigate the matter.
Nevertheless, no FIR had been registered and no substantive investigation into a cognizable offence had taken place. Instead, the police repeatedly proceeded under the limited framework of Section 174 CrPC.
In the Court’s assessment, that exercise was “inadequate and insufficient” in the peculiar facts of the case.
The Court also rejected the State’s contention that Satish Salian should now be sent to the Magistrate. After two phases of police inquiry lasting almost six years, doing so would not constitute an equally efficacious remedy. Additionally, a Magistrate could not direct a CBI investigation.
Accordingly, an independent agency was necessary.
At the same time, the High Court refused the petitioner’s request that it directly supervise the CBI investigation. It stated that there was no reason at that stage to doubt that the CBI would investigate fairly, impartially and effectively.
Crucially, the Court made clear that its order should not be read as implicating any named individual. The suspicious circumstances were discussed solely to justify registration of an FIR and a proper investigation.
The CBI was given complete freedom to add or delete offences depending on the evidence and even to file an appropriate closure/summary report if investigation ultimately disclosed no offence.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court directed the CBI officer in charge of the Mumbai region to appoint a suitably experienced and senior CBI officer as Investigating Officer.
The Court ordered that:
- the CBI officer shall record Satish Salian’s statement and register an FIR;
- the CBI shall investigate all aspects surrounding the circumstances in which Disha Salian lost her life;
- no person shall be treated as an accused unless the Investigating Officer finds sufficient material giving rise to reasonable suspicion;
- the investigation shall proceed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023;
- if an offence is established, an appropriate report shall be filed before the competent court;
- if no offence is found, the CBI may file the appropriate Summary, with Satish Salian retaining his right to file a Protest Petition; and
- Malvani Police shall hand over all necessary papers and articles to the CBI.
The writ petition and connected applications were disposed of accordingly.
Case Details
Case: Satish Salian v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:35902-DB
Court: Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 1612 of 2025, with connected Interim Applications
Bench: Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale
Order by: Justice Sarang V. Kotwal
Reserved on: 28 August 2026
Pronounced on: 2 September 2026
Result: CBI directed to register an FIR and independently investigate all circumstances surrounding Disha Salian’s death. Court-supervised investigation refused; no finding made against any individual, and the CBI remains free to reach its own conclusion
