The Bombay High Court on Monday (August 3, 2026) asked the Mumbai Police why it had not registered a First Information Report (FIR) in the death of Disha Salian, the former manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, despite her father raising a suspicion of murder. The court also noted that the post-mortem and accidental death reports had not been provided to the family for five years.

A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande heard a petition filed by Satish Salian. The petitioner sought the registration of an FIR against the police’s finding of suicide. The Bench questioned the police’s decision to register only an Accidental Death Report (ADR) and not an FIR.

The petitioner’s counsel, advocate Nilesh Ojha, stated that the police had shown a photo of the body to the father, not the body itself. The police sent Disha’s body for post-mortem three days after her death, while Sushant Singh Rajput’s autopsy occurred within 24 hours.

Ojha submitted a report from forensic experts hired by the family. The report stated that the post-mortem findings were questionable. It noted the absence of injury marks consistent with a 14-floor fall and found the body’s landing position to be approximately 10 feet from the building, instead of directly underneath. The petitioner also alleged that photographs of blood stains were “photoshopped”.

The State’s Chief Public Prosecutor, Shishir Hiray, informed the court that on June 8, 2020, Disha had attended a small gathering at a friend’s home. He said that statements from friends recorded during the investigation supported the suicide narrative. He added that after public protest regarding the initial findings, a second inquiry was conducted, but the conclusion remained unchanged.

The Bench sought clarification from the State on why the autopsy and ADR reports had not been given to the father since the incident. Justice Dangre observed that the petitioner needed to provide a chronological list of events and circumstances that constitute a cognisable offence, allowing the State to respond to each point.

The Court noted that when the petitioner’s counsel mentioned that information related to the case was available in media reports, the bench questioned the reliance on media for case details.

The case has been scheduled for further hearing.