The Bombay High Court has closely examined the investigation into the 2020 death of celebrity manager Disha Salian while hearing a petition filed by her father, Satish Salian. The bench raised detailed questions about medical findings, procedural aspects of the inquiry and the overall handling of the case by state authorities. The hearing focused on whether the existing probe adequately addressed concerns raised by the family.
Background of the Petition
Disha Salian died on 8 June 2020 after falling from a high floor of a residential building in Mumbai’s Malad area. An Accidental Death Report was registered, and the police inquiry concluded that the death was by suicide. Years later, her father approached the High Court seeking a fresh and thorough investigation. He has alleged that the circumstances of the death require closer examination and has sought registration of a proper First Information Report along with an independent probe.
A division bench of Justices Sarang V. Kotwal and Ranjitsinha R. Bhonsale heard the matter over multiple days. The court made it clear that it was examining the material before it from the perspective of a father seeking answers, without drawing final conclusions on the nature of the death at the interim stage.
Questions on Medical Findings
A significant portion of the hearing centred on the post-mortem findings and their consistency with the reported manner of death. The bench questioned how a fall from a considerable height could result in certain injuries while leaving others absent. Specifically, the court asked how the absence of major facial fractures or significant bleeding from the nose and related areas could be reconciled with a face-first impact from such a height. It also examined whether broken teeth alone, without broader facial trauma, aligned with the expected medical outcomes of such a fall.
The court further noted issues around documentation of the body’s condition. Questions were raised about differences between the panchnama description and photographs regarding clothing on the body, and about the absence of bloodstains at the scene in a manner consistent with the reported impact. State counsel submitted that the official post-mortem had found no evidence of sexual assault and that forensic and other material supported the conclusion of suicide.
Scrutiny of the Inquiry Process
The bench examined the legal character and duration of the inquiry conducted under Section 174 of the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code. This provision is intended for a limited inquiry into the apparent cause of an unnatural death. The court noted that the initial inquiry had been closed and later reopened years afterwards. It asked under what authority the proceedings had been restarted and questioned the evidentiary value of an inquiry that had continued for several years.
Judges observed that if the authorities maintained there was no suspicion of foul play, the prolonged nature of the inquiry required explanation. They also pointed to gaps in the initial spot investigation, including the reported absence of direct CCTV coverage of the location from which the fall is said to have occurred, and inconsistencies in witness accounts concerning a locked door that showed no corresponding physical damage in the panchnama.
The court emphasised that the police had a primary responsibility to share the post-mortem report and material updates with the family, whether or not a formal request had been made.
Positions of the Parties
The state maintained that the death was suicidal. Public prosecutors submitted that witness statements, forensic reports and medical findings did not support allegations of foul play. They argued that the petition lacked sufficient substance for the reliefs sought and that the father’s earlier statements had not indicated suspicion of homicide.
Counsel appearing for a political figure named in the petition strongly opposed its maintainability, describing the allegations as based on hearsay, rumour and political considerations rather than concrete evidence. The court clarified that it was assessing whether the material disclosed reasonable grounds for further inquiry, not adjudicating the ultimate truth of any specific allegation.
Focus on Closure and Procedure
Throughout the hearings the bench repeatedly returned to the need for the family to receive a lawful and transparent process. It noted that a father who has lost his daughter is entitled to answers that rest on a proper investigation. At the same time, the court refrained from pre-judging the outcome and indicated that its role at this stage was to examine whether the existing record and procedures met the standards required by law.
The matter was heard at length, with the bench reserving its order after considering the submissions. The questions raised during the proceedings have placed the medical documentation, the sequence of the inquiry and the sharing of information with the family under judicial scrutiny.
Broader Significance of the Hearing
Cases involving unnatural deaths of public figures often generate intense public interest and competing narratives. The High Court’s approach has centred on procedural fairness, the reliability of medical and forensic material, and the rights of the next of kin to a clear account of the investigation. By focusing on specific discrepancies and legal questions rather than on unverified claims, the bench has kept the discussion within the framework of established criminal procedure.
The eventual order will determine the next steps available to the petitioner and the obligations of the investigating authorities. Until then, the court’s detailed questioning has highlighted the importance of consistency between medical findings, scene documentation and the legal character of the inquiry itself. For the family, the proceedings represent an opportunity to have long-standing concerns examined in an open judicial forum. For the justice system, they underscore the requirement that even complex and high-profile cases must rest on transparent and defensible investigative processes.
Read more – Instantdua.com
