Disha Salian case: Bombay High Court orders CBI probe into death of ex-celebrity manager

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (September 2, 2026) ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the death of former celebrity manager Disha Salian, who died in June 2020 allegedly after falling from a high-rise building in Malad.

A Division Bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Ranjitsinha Bhonsale issued the directive while hearing a petition filed by her father, Satish Salian.

The court ordered the CBI to appoint an officer to investigate the case. It said the investigating officer should file the chargesheet at the earliest if a cognisable offence is established. In the absence of a cognisable offence, the court ordered the officer to file closure proceedings before the competent court. The Bench granted Disha’s father liberty to file a protest petition against the closure report, if any.

The court further directed that no individual should be treated as an accused unless the investigating officer finds sufficient material against them.

Satish Salian had petitioned the High Court last year seeking registration of a First Information Report (FIR) over his daughter’s death. He claimed she had been gang-raped and murdered. The Mumbai police have maintained that Disha died after falling from the high-rise.

Advocate Nilesh Ojha, appearing for Mr. Salian, argued that the Mumbai police did not even share Disha’s postmortem report with her father, and it was provided only after he approached the High Court nearly five years after her death. He also questioned why the police had not filed an FIR against Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aditya Thackeray and others, whose names had been mentioned by Mr. Salian.

The Maharashtra government, through the Mumbai police, maintained that there was no evidence to prosecute anyone in connection with Disha’s death. Chief Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray argued that the evidence indicated that Ms. Salian had either died by suicide or accidentally fallen from the building. He questioned why Mr. Salian had not raised suspicion against anyone earlier, especially when both he and his wife had their statements recorded more than once by the police.

The counsel of Mr. Salian argued that the circumstances surrounding his daughter’s death had raised suspicion and that the police were bound by the Supreme Court’s Lalita Kumari judgment to register an FIR.

Senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola, appearing for Mr. Thackeray, opposed the plea, arguing that the proceedings were politically motivated.

During the hearing, the judges orally observed that the allegations made by the father could be true or false, but the police should have registered an FIR and given a closure. The Bench noted that the police had continued to keep the family informed about their daughter’s death and had inquired into the accidental death report (ADR) for nearly five to six years.

Mr. Hiray clarified that the ADR was closed in October 2020 itself and was reopened only after the newly formed State government took note of several allegations being made on social media regarding the manner in which the initial probe was carried out. He said even the subsequent inquiry had found no evidence warranting prosecution of anyone for murder.

A detailed copy of the court order is awaited.

Those in distress or having suicidal tendencies could seek help and counselling by calling any of the following numbers: