PRESS NOTE
My client, Shri Satish Salian, has been continuously pursuing a legal battle to secure justice for his daughter. On the basis of the available medical, forensic and other evidence, mobile tower locations, information that has emerged from eyewitnesses, and other material, and pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the CBI has registered a case and commenced investigation against Aaditya Thackeray, Uddhav Thackeray and others in relation to serious offences including gang rape, murder, criminal conspiracy, destruction of material evidence of the offence, preparation of false, fabricated or misleading records with the object of shielding the accused, and manipulation of official records, under Sections 376-D, 302, 201, 120-B, 217 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code and other applicable provisions.
Against this background, it has become necessary, on behalf of my client, to place certain extremely important facts before the public.
It has come to our notice that certain persons are still attempting to mislead the public by using my client’s name and one of his old complaints against Shri Narayan Rane, Shri Nitesh Rane and other persons who, from the beginning, raised their voices seeking justice for my client’s daughter.
In particular, it has come to our notice that Aaditya Thackeray, Sushma Andhare, Akhil Chitre, Varun Sardesai and Sanjay Raut have been referring to the said old matter and using my client’s name.
The True Position Regarding the Old Complaint
My client, Shri Satish Salian, has already clearly stated his stand concerning the earlier case registered against Shri Narayan Rane and Shri Nitesh Rane in the affidavit filed before the Hon’ble High Court.
At that time, my client did not possess the information and evidence that are available today. According to my client, following the intervention of the then Mayor, Kishori Pednekar, and the then Chairperson of the Maharashtra State Commission for Women, Rupali Chakankar, my client and his wife were given false, misleading and incomplete information, their signatures were obtained, and on that basis the concerned complaint/FIR came to be registered.
At that stage, my client was unaware of the facts and evidence that subsequently came to light. In the affidavit filed before the Court, my client has also stated that for approximately two and a half years, he and his wife did not have an effective independent opportunity to contact journalists, concerned persons or other potential sources of information, and police personnel were continuously kept with them.
My client has taken a clear stand before the Hon’ble High Court that the said complaint against Shri Narayan Rane and Shri Nitesh Rane was caused to be made by providing false and misleading information, and that the role of all persons involved in the entire episode should be investigated and appropriate action taken against them in accordance with law.
My client has no desire whatsoever to pursue the said case further.
As the father and family of the person whose alleged defamation was cited as the basis for the said complaint, my client does not wish to pursue that matter. He has made this position clear before the Hon’ble High Court as well.
When the concerned family itself does not wish to pursue the matter, no third person has any legal or moral right to use my client’s name, the name of his deceased daughter, or his old complaint to advance his or her own political or personal interests.
The use of my client’s grief, the name of his deceased daughter, and his old complaint as political instruments must stop immediately.
Clear Position Regarding Shri Narayan Rane and Shri Nitesh Rane
My client and his family publicly clarify that Shri Narayan Rane and Shri Nitesh Rane raised serious questions regarding the death of his daughter from the very beginning and spoke out in support of securing justice for her.
If, because of my client’s earlier complaint, Shri Narayan Rane, Shri Nitesh Rane, or any other person who genuinely raised his or her voice to secure justice for my client’s daughter suffered harassment, defamation or legal difficulty, my client publicly apologises to them for the same.
According to my client, in light of the evidence now available and the material that has subsequently emerged, the facts that have come to light are entirely different from the information that had been given to him at that time.
The facts now revealed in light of the presently available evidence and material are entirely different from the narrative conveyed to him at the relevant time. Statements of eyewitnesses, material concerning persons present at the scene, information emerging from Disha’s friends, mobile tower locations of the concerned persons, material concerning deletion of CCTV footage, records concerning the absence of clothes on Disha’s body, and several other important circumstances and discrepancies—many of which have also been referred to by the Hon’ble High Court in its order—according to my client, establish that the reports and records prepared by the police at that time, and the narrative put forward by them, were false and inconsistent with the actual facts.
My client’s clear case is that the evidence and material now available provide substantial factual support to the serious questions raised from the beginning by Shri Narayan Rane and Shri Nitesh Rane. Conversely, according to my client, the material that has now emerged shows that false witnesses, false statements, a fabricated narrative, and incorrect, false or misleading records were created in order to conceal the true sequence of events and to protect the principal accused, Aaditya Thackeray.
Strict Warning to Those Misusing My Client’s Name
No person should mislead the public by using my client’s name, his wife’s name, the name of his deceased daughter, his old complaint, or any of his earlier statements in a distorted, selective or misleading manner.
Where my client himself does not wish to pursue the matter, no third person has any legal or moral right to push it forward in his name or exploit it for political or personal advantage.
In particular, while the CBI investigation into extremely serious allegations concerning gang rape, murder, criminal conspiracy, destruction of evidence, and creation of false or fabricated records to shield the accused is underway, any attempt to rely upon my client’s old complaint to divert public attention from the principal offences, or to construct a misleading narrative for the benefit of persons who are within the scope of the investigation, must stop immediately.
Videos of the relevant public statements made by Aaditya Thackeray, Sushma Andhare, Akhil Chitre, Varun Sardesai and Sanjay Raut, along with other evidence and available material, have already been submitted by my client to the CBI.
Criminal and Civil Proceedings
On the basis of the available evidence concerning the relevant statements and acts of Aaditya Thackeray, Sushma Andhare, Varun Sardesai, Akhil Chitre and Sanjay Raut, my client is initiating appropriate criminal as well as civil proceedings against them.
Appropriate criminal and civil proceedings are also being initiated against TV9 Marathi journalist Krishna Sonarwadkar and his senior officers in relation to allegations that false, misleading, one-sided and incomplete news reports were prepared and published with the object of assisting the accused in the alleged conspiracy. All available evidence and material relating to their role have already been submitted to the CBI.
The necessary legal process has also been initiated, in accordance with the order of the Hon’ble High Court and the legal principles laid down in Shyni Varghese v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2008 SCC OnLine Del 204, for investigating the role of the concerned editors and other persons accused of assisting in the alleged conspiracy and, for arraigning them as co-accused under Sections 192 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code and other applicable penal provisions.
Hereafter, if any person misuses the name of my client or his deceased daughter to disseminate false, distorted or misleading information, all criminal, civil and other remedies available under law will be pursued against such person.
My client’s position is absolutely clear: his daughter must receive justice, the complete truth must come before the public, and whoever is found guilty must face strict action in accordance with law. At the same time, no person should use the name of his daughter, the grief of his family, or his old complaint for political or personal gain, to mislead the public, or to divert public attention from the serious offences presently under investigation by the CBI.
Clarification Regarding Sushma Andhare’s Statement that “Aaditya Thackeray’s Name Is Not Even in the FIR”
FIR means First Information Report. It is the formal record made in accordance with law of the first information received by the police concerning the commission of a cognizable offence.
Column No. 12 of the CBI FIR expressly records that, pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the statement of Shri Satish Salian was recorded and that the said statement disclosed cognizable offences under Sections 376-D, 302, 201, 217 and 218 IPC—namely gang rape, murder, destruction or concealment of evidence of an offence, disobedience of directions of law with intent to save an accused, and preparation of false records—and therefore the FIR was registered.
Further, on Page No. 5 of the First Information portion of the FIR, specific allegations concerning Aaditya Thackeray and Uddhav Thackeray are recorded. The FIR records allegations that Disha possessed information and evidence concerning alleged unlawful acts of Aaditya Thackeray, including references to child abuse and drug trafficking, and that she had shared such information with Sushant Singh Rajput. It further records the allegation that a criminal conspiracy was hatched to prevent such information from becoming public; that Disha was thereafter subjected to gang rape and murdered; and that evidence was subsequently destroyed and false evidence and records were created to portray the murder as a suicide.
The FIR further records allegations that the then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray, Aaditya Thackeray and others played significant roles in the alleged conspiracy and subsequent cover-up. It thereafter separately identifies persons whose roles are required to be investigated in connection with the principal offences of gang rape and murder, the related conspiracy, and the subsequent cover-up; the first name in that list is Aaditya Thackeray.
In addition, Page No. 9 of the FIR records a specific allegation that Aaditya Thackeray’s mobile tower location was found at the scene. In the same context, the FIR refers to a related news report and records the claim that the presence of influential persons at the location was indicated by their mobile tower locations.
Paragraphs 7 and 8 on Pages 7 and 8 of the FIR record further specific and serious allegations. According to those allegations, Disha’s mobile phone was taken into possession by Sachin Waze and Aaditya Thackeray. It is further alleged that the phone was examined to ascertain the persons to whom Disha had sent or shared information concerning their alleged drug-related activities/business, and that decisions were being taken as to who should be killed, who should be threatened, and who should be silenced in what manner.
Thereafter, Column No. 13, Sub-Part (4) of the FIR expressly states: “FIR read over to the complainant/informant, admitted to be correctly recorded and a copy given to the informant free of cost.” Below this appears the notation “R.O.A.C.”—“Read Over and Admitted to be Correct”—along with the signature of the informant/complainant.
The plain meaning is that the entire contents recorded in the FIR were read over to the informant/complainant; he accepted that they had been correctly recorded; his signature was thereafter obtained; and a copy of the FIR was supplied to him free of cost.
In the succeeding portion, the CBI records that the information disclosed commission of the concerned cognizable offences and that the case was therefore being registered, followed by the signature of the concerned CBI officer.
Accordingly, the FIR has to be read as a whole: specific allegations concerning Aaditya Thackeray and Uddhav Thackeray; reference to their alleged roles in the conspiracy and subsequent cover-up; reference to Aaditya Thackeray’s mobile tower location; the allegation concerning taking possession of Disha’s mobile phone and examining the information contained in it; thereafter the R.O.A.C.; and finally the CBI’s registration of the case on the ground that cognizable offences were disclosed.
Aaditya Thackeray’s name appears a total of ten times in the FIR. Therefore, the statement that Aaditya Thackeray’s or Uddhav Thackeray’s name does not appear in the FIR is, according to my client, completely false and misleading.
Ignoring the High Court’s Order and Repeating the Same Police Version? — A Direct Question to Sushma Andhare
Sushma Andhare has claimed that “Disha’s body had clothes on it and an unnecessary controversy is being created,” relying for this purpose upon a letter of the then DCP Vishal Thakur.
However, Sushma Andhare should first carefully read the order of the Hon’ble High Court.
The very police investigation and records that she now asks the public to rely upon contained serious discrepancies expressly noted by the Hon’ble High Court. The Court recorded that the earlier investigation was inadequate and insufficient and directed registration of an FIR and investigation of the entire matter by the CBI.
Significantly, the issue concerning clothes on Disha’s body was separately recorded by the Court in Paragraph 38(ix). The police themselves had written to the post-mortem doctor on 12.08.2020 asking, in substance, why the body was nude. The Court also raised the question that if the police themselves claimed to have seized the clothes, why did it become necessary for them to ask the doctor why there were no clothes on the body?
The question to Sushma Andhare is therefore this: why is the same police version, over which the High Court itself raised serious questions, once again being presented to the public as the final truth?
The eyewitness account states that Disha was gang raped and murdered and Aditya Thackrey was not only involved in conspiracy but he alongwith, his bodyguards was present there and there were no clothes on Disha’s body and that it was covered only with a white sheet. The reference to the Inquest Panchnama in the written response of the Police Surgeon/Doctor is also consistent with that account.
On the other hand, it is alleged that witnesses who claimed that the body was clothed gave mutually contradictory versions regarding the colour and type of clothing. Serious questions also arise regarding the alleged clothes-seizure panchnama, including why the alleged clothes were sent to the FSL nearly two months later.
More importantly, the name of the then DCP Vishal Thakur—whose letter is now being relied upon—also appears in the FIR in the context of allegations concerning destruction of evidence, preparation of false records and the alleged cover-up.
Therefore, ignoring the High Court’s order and once again broadcasting as final truth the very police version over which the Court raised serious questions cannot, in our submission, be treated merely as ordinary political criticism. If judicial findings are deliberately distorted in order to mislead the public, serious questions of legal consequences, including contempt of court, may arise.
A High Court order cannot be altered by holding a press conference.
The question is extremely simple: if the police themselves asked the doctor in writing, “Why was the body nude?”, what exactly is the basis today for asserting categorically that “the body definitely had clothes on it”?
Supporters of the accused should set aside political rhetoric and answer Paragraph 38(ix) of the Hon’ble High Court’s order.
My Client’s Direct Question to Varun Sardesai — How Long Will the SIT Version Rejected by the High Court Continue to Be Used as a Shield?
In an interview, Varun Sardesai says: “Read the affidavit dated 17.06.2025 of SIT member Shailendra Nagarkar; it clearly states that there is no evidence against Aaditya Thackeray.”
Varun Sardesai, must at least read what happened thereafter: in its order dated 02.09.2026, the High Court rejected the objections based on that affidavit and directed registration of an FIR.
The very SIT affidavit and version now being relied upon formed part of an investigation in which serious discrepancies, deficiencies and matters appearing from the record were brought before the Hon’ble High Court. After considering the matter as a whole, the High Court passed a 44-page order and the case proceeded to a CBI investigation. Thereafter, the CBI recorded that cognizable offences were disclosed and registered the FIR.
What, then, is sought to be conveyed to the public today by once again placing reliance upon the same old SIT affidavit?
When the High Court had to intervene after the SIT version and direct a CBI investigation, selectively lifting one convenient sentence from that same version and claiming that “there is no evidence against Aaditya Thackeray” amounts, to deliberately ignoring the subsequent High Court order and the CBI FIR and thereby misleading the public.
The sequence is perfectly clear: first, the SIT affidavit and its version; thereafter, serious discrepancies in that investigation were brought before the High Court; then came the High Court’s 44-page order dated 02.09.2026 directing a CBI investigation; and thereafter, on 13.09.2026, the CBI registered the FIR on the basis that cognizable offences were disclosed.
Why, then, continue to remain stuck on the old SIT affidavit?
Varun Sardesai should clearly answer whether he has not read the High Court’s order, does not understand its legal consequences, or whether, despite being aware of the subsequent developments, the public is being deliberately misled.
Before showing the public one convenient line from the old SIT affidavit, the entire subsequent 44-page order of the Hon’ble High Court and the CBI FIR should also be placed before the public.
Because a half-truth can never conceal the whole truth forever.
On behalf of Shri Satish Salian
Adv. Anushka Sonawane
Advocate for Shri Satish Salian
