CBI FIR in Disha Salian Death Case: Gang Rape, Murder and Cover-Up Allegations

Mumbai/New Delhi, September 15, 2026: The death of celebrity manager Disha Salian, which was recorded by Mumbai Police as a suicide in June 2020, has entered a new phase after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR following an order of the Bombay High Court. The FIR, registered as RC0502026S0006, invokes provisions relating to criminal conspiracy, gang rape, murder, disappearance of evidence and alleged fabrication or incorrect recording by public servants.

The case has been registered on the basis of a fresh statement by Salian’s father Satish Ishwar Salian, recorded by the CBI after the High Court directed the agency to conduct a substantive investigation into the circumstances surrounding his daughter’s death.

Importantly, the FIR does not establish the allegations as proven facts, nor does the naming of any individual mean that person has been made an accused or found guilty. The Bombay High Court specifically directed that no person should be treated as an accused unless the investigating officer finds sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion on the basis of material collected during the investigation.

What triggered the fresh CBI probe?

The development follows the Bombay High Court’s detailed order of September 2, 2026, in Satish Salian vs State of Maharashtra and Others, concerning Criminal Writ Petition No. 1612 of 2025.

The court noted that the earlier inquiry had been conducted under the provisions relating to an inquiry into an unnatural death rather than through a full FIR-based investigation into a cognisable offence. After examining the material placed before it, the court concluded that the earlier process was inadequate and that the matter required substantive investigation.

The court observed that the investigation had been conducted in two stages over nearly six years and said that it “raises more questions than it answers”, concluding that a CBI investigation was necessary.

The High Court consequently ordered the CBI’s Mumbai-region officer to appoint a suitably experienced senior investigating officer, record Satish Salian’s statement and register an FIR. It directed the CBI to investigate all aspects surrounding the circumstances in which Disha Salian lost her life.

Disha Salian’s death and the original police version

Disha Salian, who had worked as a celebrity manager and had briefly worked with actor Sushant Singh Rajput, died after falling from the 12th floor of a building in Mumbai in the early hours of June 9, 2020.

Mumbai Police initially registered an Accidental Death Report (ADR) rather than an FIR alleging murder. The police inquiry concluded that Salian had died by suicide and found no evidence of foul play. A subsequent investigation ordered by the Maharashtra government in 2023 also reached the same conclusion, according to the High Court record.

The Maharashtra government’s submission before the High Court said the first inquiry was completed in 2020 and the matter was closed in February 2021. Further investigation was ordered in December 2023 following questions surrounding the death. That inquiry continued until April 2026 and again concluded that Salian had died by suicide and that no fresh evidence indicating foul play had emerged.

The High Court, however, found a number of circumstances that warranted a fresh substantive investigation.

What Satish Salian has alleged

According to the CBI FIR and Satish Salian’s statement, the complainant disputes the suicide narrative and has alleged that his daughter was sexually assaulted and murdered, followed by an attempt to portray the death as suicide.

The statement further alleges that Disha had obtained information concerning alleged unlawful activities through her professional work and that some of this information had been shared with Sushant Singh Rajput.

The complainant alleges that the information created a motive for a conspiracy against his daughter and that the subsequent investigation was manipulated to conceal the circumstances of her death.

These claims are part of the complainant’s allegations recorded in the FIR and are now subject to investigation.

High Court flagged several unexplained circumstances

The Bombay High Court’s order is significant because it did not merely rely on the allegations made by Salian’s father. The bench examined material from the earlier investigation and identified several circumstances that, in its view, required proper investigation.

Among the issues highlighted by the court was the delay in conducting the spot panchnama. The court noted that police personnel had reached the building shortly after the incident but that the spot panchnama was conducted more than nine hours later.

The court also examined inconsistencies concerning the timing recorded in the Accidental Death Report and the initial statements given by family members.

Questions surrounding the physical evidence

The High Court examined the post-mortem findings and noted six external injuries, including injuries to the chin, chest and abdomen, elbow, arm, thigh, lower leg, knee and heel, along with skull and rib fractures.

The bench observed that some aspects of the injuries and the reported fall required expert consideration. It specifically stated that these observations were being recorded only to determine whether registration of an FIR and substantive investigation were warranted, rather than as findings of guilt.

The court also referred to a communication from a forensic official questioning the relatively small amount of blood found on articles submitted for examination despite the reported fall from the 12th floor.

Forensic evidence becomes another focus

Another issue highlighted in the High Court order concerns the handling and description of forensic samples.

The post-mortem documentation referred to vaginal and anal swabs being collected for examination. However, the material sent to the forensic laboratory was described as vaginal and anal smears on slides.

The forensic laboratory had sought an explanation for the discrepancy. The medical officer subsequently stated that swabs had not been taken and that smears had been collected, attributing the earlier description to an error in the documentation.

The court noted the discrepancy as an issue requiring consideration. The chemical analysis reportedly found no male DNA on the slides.

Mobile phone and electronic evidence under scrutiny

The CBI FIR also raises questions about Disha Salian’s mobile phone and electronic evidence.

According to the allegations recorded in the FIR, the phone was taken into police possession on June 9, 2020, but questions subsequently emerged about its activity and the circumstances in which it was accessed.

The FIR alleges that different explanations were given regarding the phone’s seizure and subsequent use and alleges that relevant digital evidence may have been accessed, deleted or compromised. These claims are now among the matters the CBI is expected to examine.

The High Court separately noted that Disha’s mobile phone and laptop were seized and examined only on June 17, 2020, rather than during the spot panchnama conducted on June 9. The court identified this as one of the discrepancies requiring substantive investigation.

Who has been named in the FIR?

The FIR and the complainant’s statement refer to several individuals whose roles, according to Satish Salian, should be examined.

They include Aaditya Thackeray, Uddhav Thackeray, Rhea Chakraborty, Showik Chakraborty, Dino Morea, Sooraj Pancholi, Rohan Roy, Sachin Vaze, Param Bir Singh, DCP Vishal Thakur and former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh, among others. The FIR also refers to bodyguards, police personnel, security guards, medical personnel, forensic officials and other persons whose roles the complainant has sought to have investigated.

However, the legal position is crucial: the Bombay High Court expressly directed that nobody should be treated as an accused unless the investigating officer finds sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion based on material collected during the investigation.

What happened to the earlier investigation?

The High Court record shows that the original inquiry was conducted under Section 174 of the CrPC, which concerns police inquiry into unnatural deaths.

The state told the court that the investigation was carried out initially in 2020 and again from December 2023, with the second inquiry concluding in April 2026 that there was no evidence of foul play.

The court, however, held that the procedure followed was inadequate in the circumstances and that the matter required investigation of a cognisable offence through the FIR process.

The bench also stressed that it was not conducting a mini-trial and was not recording findings against any individual. Instead, the suspicious circumstances were being discussed only to determine whether a full investigation was necessary.

CBI gets a broad mandate

The September 2 order gives the CBI considerable scope.

The agency has been directed to:

• Register the FIR and record the complainant’s statement.
• Investigate all circumstances surrounding Disha Salian’s death.
• Examine the material collected during the earlier investigations.
• Take over relevant papers and articles from Malvani Police Station.
• Determine whether the allegations disclose cognisable offences.
• Add or delete legal provisions depending on what the investigation establishes.
• File an appropriate report before the competent court.

The court also made clear that if the CBI ultimately finds that no offence has been made out, it can submit an appropriate summary report, against which the complainant would have the right to file a protest petition.

No finding yet on murder or gang rape allegations

The most important distinction at this stage is between allegations and findings.

The FIR has opened an investigation into allegations of gang rape, murder, criminal conspiracy and an alleged cover-up. It does not establish that these offences occurred.

Similarly, the people named in Satish Salian’s statement have not, by virtue of being mentioned in the FIR, been convicted or necessarily even made accused.

The High Court itself stated that it had made no observations against any particular individual and that the CBI must investigate independently and in accordance with law. It also directed that innocent persons should not be harassed and that any offenders, if established by the investigation, should face trial.

Why the case has wider significance

The Disha Salian case has remained in the public domain partly because her death occurred only days before the death of Sushant Singh Rajput on June 14, 2020. The two cases have repeatedly been discussed together, although the CBI’s investigation into Rajput’s death had separately concluded that there was no foul play, according to subsequent reporting.

The fresh CBI investigation now creates a separate evidentiary process focused specifically on Salian’s death.

The investigation will therefore be closely watched for answers to several outstanding questions: what happened inside the building before the fall, whether the death was suicide or resulted from a criminal act, whether forensic and electronic evidence was properly preserved, whether the earlier inquiry was complete, and whether any person interfered with the investigation.

For now, those questions remain open. The CBI investigation—not the FIR itself—will determine what the evidence ultimately establishes.