In a recent hearing in August 2026, the Bombay High Court raised serious questions about the police investigation in the Disha Salian case, calling it “futile” and incomplete. Hearing a petition filed by celebrity manager Disha Salian’s father, Satish Salian, seeking an independent and transparent investigation (CBI), the court highlighted several major inconsistencies in the Mumbai Police’s theory and legal procedures. The court’s observations and key aspects of the case are as follows:
1. The High Court’s key questions about the police theory and investigation: Failure to register an FIR: Taking a strong stance, the court asked why the police did not register an FIR when the deceased’s father had filed a complaint alleging gang rape and murder, and why it was only classified as an ‘Accidental Death Report’ (ADR). Under Supreme Court rules, an FIR is mandatory for such serious allegations.
2. Inconsistencies in physical injuries: The petitioner’s lawyer told the court that Disha’s face and nose appeared completely intact even after falling from the 14th floor, which is medically suspicious. The court also found contradictions between the police’s claims and the postmortem records.
3. Landing Position: The court was informed that, according to scientific calculations, the body should have landed directly on the ground upon falling, but it was found approximately 10 feet away from the building. Concealment of documents: The court expressed strong displeasure that even after so many years of the incident, the police had not provided copies of the postmortem and ADR to the family.
4. Violation of postmortem rules: According to government guidelines, a team of two doctors should conduct the postmortem in such cases, whereas Disha Salian’s postmortem was conducted by only one doctor.
After hearing three days of arguments, the Bombay High Court’s division bench (Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Ranjitsimha Bhosale) reserved its verdict for August 28, 2026. The court will soon decide whether the case will be investigated afresh or independently by the CBI. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the closure report filed by the police and clearly stated that the victim’s father has every right to challenge it in court.
The state government’s public prosecutor has defended the police investigation. They claim that the crime scene panchnama, CCTV footage, and statements of witnesses (such as Disha’s fiancé, Rohan Rai) do not reveal any evidence of foul play, and that the case is a case of suicide or accident. The petitioner has also leveled allegations against political figures (such as Aditya Thackeray), though Aditya Thackeray’s lawyers have dismissed this as an attempt to tarnish his image due to political rivalry. The court clarified that it was acting solely with the “sanctity and impartiality of the law” in mind, without any political overtones. Thus, the Bombay High Court’s comments on the police’s earlier theory have brought a new twist to the case. Only the court’s final decision will determine whether a fresh, impartial investigation will be initiated.