Nilesh Ojha, the lawyer representing Disha Salian’s father, Satish Salian, has made several serious claims in the case. He claimed that Uddhav Thackeray is an accused in the case, while Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis is a key witness. He alleged that CCTV footage was tampered with and claimed that the CBI could take action against Aditya Thackeray and others based on the evidence he submitted. Nilesh Ojha alleged that Uddhav Thackeray had police officer Sachin Vaze reinstated to the police service to conceal his son’s misdeeds. Sachin Vaze was suspended on a High Court order in the custodial death and related cover-up case and was out on bail. Vaze was reinstated two days before Disha Salian’s death.
Nilesh Ojha alleged that Vaze’s reinstatement was against the court’s order. He claimed that former police officer Parambir Singh had stated in his statement that pressure was exerted by Uddhav Thackeray and Aditya Thackeray to reinstate Vaze. Ojha also linked this to alleged misuse of power by then-Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray.
He claimed that current Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis is a key witness in this case. According to Nilesh Ojha, after Sachin Vaze’s arrest in the Antilia case, Uddhav Thackeray held a press conference and stated that he was not Osama bin Laden. Devendra Fadnavis then stated that when he was Chief Minister, Uddhav Thackeray had asked him to reinstate Sachin Vaze, but he refused to do so, citing a court order.
Nilesh Ojha also made several claims regarding Parambir Singh, Shailendra Nagarkar, Arjun Rajane, Sachin Vaze, and Aditya Thackeray. He stated that the CBI could prepare to take action against these individuals, such as arrest, after examining the available records and evidence.
Regarding the footage related to the Disha Salian case, Ojha claimed that the police sealed the DVR after taking backup and that it had been tampered with. He stated that the police sealed the CCTV footage after taking DVR backup. He claimed that a few days later, Parambir Singh stated in a press conference that Aditya Thackeray and others were not present at the scene at the time of the incident. Questioning this, Ojha asked how such an investigation was conducted based on the CCTV footage if it had already been sealed.
According to lawyer Nilesh Ojha, when the case began hearing in the High Court in 2025, he requested a forensic examination report of the CCTV footage. He claimed that when the court requested the report, the police stated that the footage had not been forensically examined. Subsequently, the footage was sent for forensic examination. Ojha claimed that the forensic report allegedly revealed that the video recordings between June 4 and June 9 had been deleted.
Nilesh Ojha claimed that five buildings were exposed. He stated that if any important documents or evidence disappear from police custody or from a police officer’s office, and this is done to protect an accused, serious legal action can be taken against those responsible. Citing High Court and Supreme Court orders, he claimed that in the event of tampering of evidence to protect an accused, the relevant individuals can be detained and further investigated. Ojha claimed that further action, including arrest, can be taken against the concerned individuals under the legal provisions available to the CBI.