Disha Salian Death Case: Aaditya Thackeray’s Lawyer Says Father ‘Made A Tool’ By Political Rivals; Bombay HC Reserves Order

The Bombay High Court on Friday reserved its order on a plea filed by Satish Salian, father of late celebrity manager Disha Salian, seeking registration of an FIR and a fresh probe into her June 2020 death, including against Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray.

Salian, who had worked as the manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, died after falling from a high-rise building in Mumbai’s Malad area on June 8, 2020, just days before Rajput was found dead at his Bandra residence on June 14.

A division bench of Justices Sarang V Kotwal and Ranjitsinha Bhonsale heard arguments from the parties at length before reserving the matter for orders.

Salian has alleged that his daughter was sexually assaulted and murdered and has sought registration of an FIR against Thackeray and others.

The proceedings have focused substantially on the manner in which Mumbai Police handled the case. The bench questioned whether a prolonged inquiry under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [now Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)], which concerns inquiries into unnatural or suspicious deaths, could effectively substitute a regular criminal investigation.

Court observed that a Section 174 inquiry is primarily concerned with ascertaining the apparent cause of death and cannot by itself provide a person with a “clean chit” in relation to allegations of a cognisable offence.

“Section 174 in this situation has no meaning at all, because it cannot give a clean chit to anyone,” the bench observed.

The judges questioned why an Accidental Death Report (ADR) inquiry continued for years without an FIR being registered if doubts about the circumstances of the death persisted.

The bench, however, clarified that it was not holding that Disha Salian had been raped or murdered. Rather, it was examining whether the material and allegations disclosed sufficient grounds to warrant registration of an FIR and a proper investigation.

“We are not conclusively saying rape or murder was committed,” court said, while stressing that it was considering the issue from the perspective of the deceased's father seeking an investigation and closure.

What did Aaditya Thackeray’s lawyer argue?

Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola, appearing for Aaditya Thackeray, opposed the plea and questioned the motive behind it.

Pasbola argued that Satish Salian had been made a “tool” by political rivals seeking to target Thackeray. He submitted that the allegations were based on media reports and hearsay and described the petition as a mala fide exercise undertaken for an ulterior motive.

“Somebody else wants to knock down Thackeray. The father of the victim has become a tool,” Pasbola told the court.

Thackeray has previously denied the allegations against him and maintained that the proceedings were an attempt to tarnish his reputation.

What is the police’s stand?

The Maharashtra government defended the investigation conducted into Disha Salian’s death.

Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray submitted that the material collected by the police, including spot panchnamas and statements of witnesses, did not disclose foul play. He also referred to the statement of Disha’s fiancé, Rohan Roy.

The state has maintained that the death was the result of Disha falling from the building and that the investigation did not reveal evidence supporting allegations of murder or other criminal activity.

The Maharashtra government had also constituted a Special Investigation Team to look into the matter. In July 2025, the SIT informed the high court that it had found no foul play in the death, while its investigation was continuing. The police had relied on post-mortem and forensic material, CCTV footage, mobile call records and witness statements in support of its position.

Why is the Section 174 inquiry significant?

The central issue before the high court is not presently whether Disha Salian was murdered, but whether the authorities followed the legally prescribed procedure in dealing with allegations raising suspicion about an unnatural death.

Court stressed that where information discloses a cognizable offence, the question of registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the CrPC [now Section 173 of the BNSS] has to be considered. An inquiry into the apparent cause of death under Section 174 cannot itself serve as a substitute for such an investigation.

Section 154 of the CrPC deals with the registration of an FIR for Information in cognizable cases. A cognizable offense is a serious crime where a police officer can arrest a suspect without a court warrant.Aaditya Thackeray

The bench said proper procedure was necessary to provide genuine legal closure to the family.

Satish Salian had initially told the police in 2020 that he did not suspect foul play and was satisfied with the investigation. He subsequently changed his position and approached the high court alleging that his daughter had been gang-raped and murdered.