Bombay HC Scrutinizes Stalled Disha Salian Probe, Cites Victim's Rights Under CrPC

The division bench has sharply questioned the Mumbai Police's five-year-long investigation into the celebrity manager's death, focusing on the denial of basic case documents to her father and the indefinite nature of the probe.

MUMBAI – The Bombay High Court has cast a critical eye on the protracted investigation into the 2020 death of celebrity manager Disha Salian, admonishing the Mumbai Police for the five-year delay and questioning the reluctance to share fundamental case documents with the victim's father. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Bhonsale, hearing a petition filed by Satish Salian, has demanded justification for the seemingly interminable probe and underscored the statutory rights of a victim under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The case, which has remained in the public consciousness partly due to its connection with the subsequent death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, has now become a focal point for crucial legal questions surrounding the timeliness of criminal investigations, police accountability, and the rights of a victim's family to information.

Judicial Impatience Over Investigative Delays

During a hearing on Thursday, the bench expressed pointed frustration with the status of the investigation. Justice Gadkari directly addressed the Public Prosecutor, Mrinmay Deshmukh, highlighting the inordinate passage of time.

"Five years have passed and still you say probe is going on...What is this? Five years have already passed... Some one has died... You need to only ascertain if it was a suicide, culpable homicide amounting to murder or not amounting to murder etc.," Justice Gadkari remarked.

This observation cuts to the core of the issue: the failure of the investigative agency to reach a preliminary conclusion on the nature of death even after half a decade. The court's query implicitly raises concerns about the potential for evidence degradation, fading witness memories, and the prolonged anguish faced by the victim's family, all of which undermine the principles of a fair and speedy justice system.

In response, the Public Prosecutor stated that the investigation remains active as authorities are "trying to rule out all the possibilities." As an example of ongoing efforts, he mentioned that CCTV footage from the incident has been re-submitted for forensic analysis. However, this justification appeared to do little to assuage the bench's concerns about the overall timeline.

Victim's Rights Under Section 2(w)(a) of the CrPC

A significant portion of the court's scrutiny was dedicated to the police's refusal to provide Satish Salian with basic documents related to his daughter's death. The bench invoked a key statutory provision to frame this issue, demonstrating a rights-based approach to the petitioner's plea.

"What is the difficulty in giving basic documents to the father? He is covered by section 2(W)(a) of the CrPC, which defines 'victim.' What is this difficulty? Please take instructions on this," the judges asserted.

Section 2(w)(a) of the CrPC defines a "victim" as a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and includes the victim's guardian or legal heir. By explicitly citing this definition, the High Court has positioned Mr. Salian not merely as a grieving parent but as a party with recognized legal standing and inherent rights within the criminal justice process.

The bench clarified that it was not demanding the disclosure of the entire case diary or sensitive investigative materials. Instead, it focused on "basic documents," specifically asking the prosecutor to seek instructions on whether Mr. Salian's own recorded statements and the post-mortem report or "final cause certificate" could be shared. This nuanced approach balances the state's interest in maintaining investigative confidentiality with the victim's fundamental right to information and participation. The matter is slated for further hearing on December 11, when the state is expected to respond.

Conflicting Narratives and Allegations

The proceedings also brought to light a significant divergence in the narratives presented by the police and the petitioner. Public Prosecutor Deshmukh submitted that Disha's parents, Satish and Vasanti Salian, had their statements recorded on three separate occasions and had consistently stated they held no allegations against anyone concerning their daughter's death.

"Initially they said no allegations against anyone... In 2025 [sic], recently he raised this contention and made allegations," the Prosecutor argued, referring to Mr. Salian's petition filed in March of this year, which alleges that his daughter was a victim of gang rape and murder.

The bench, in turn, questioned the necessity of recording the parents' statements multiple times. The prosecutor clarified these were "supplementary statements" where, he claimed, no new allegations were raised at the time.

However, this official account was challenged by the petitioner's counsel, Nilesh Ojha. He argued that the prosecutor's submission was "factually and legally incorrect." Ojha pointed to a previous affidavit filed by the police, which allegedly stated that the investigation was complete and nothing further remained to be proven. This apparent contradiction raises serious questions about the consistency and transparency of the police's position throughout the case.

Broader Legal Implications for Criminal Jurisprudence

The Bombay High Court's intervention in the Disha Salian case carries significant implications beyond the specific facts at hand. It serves as a potent reminder of the judiciary's role in overseeing the executive and ensuring that investigative agencies adhere to procedural fairness and constitutional mandates.

1. Enforcing Speedy Investigations: The court's strong stance against the five-year delay reinforces the principle that the right to a speedy trial, an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution, extends to the investigative stage. Indefinite investigations can be a form of harassment and can lead to a failure of justice.

2. Operationalizing Victim's Rights: By grounding its reasoning in Section 2(w)(a) of the CrPC, the court is actively championing a victim-centric approach to criminal justice. Its directive to consider providing basic documents like the post-mortem report and witness statements to the victim's legal heir could set a persuasive precedent for how police agencies handle such requests in the future.

3. Judicial Scrutiny of Police Conduct: The bench’s detailed questioning about investigative methods, such as the repeated recording of statements and the timing of forensic tests, signals a willingness to look beyond procedural claims and examine the substantive quality and efficiency of the police's work.

As the legal community awaits the state's response on December 11, this case has evolved into a crucial test of the balance between investigative prerogative and the statutory rights of victims. The High Court’s ultimate decision could have a lasting impact on police procedure and the practical application of victim rights in Maharashtra and beyond.