Mumbai, August 6: Advocate Nilesh Ojha, appearing for Satish Salian, father of Disha Salian, has issued a detailed legal communication to the Chief Public Prosecutor and the Investigating Officer following the hearing before the Bombay High Court on 3 August 2026, seeking supply of all investigation records, electronic evidence and connected documents within three days.
According to the letter, during the hearing on 3 August 2026, the Division Bench specifically recorded the Petitioner’s grievance that both the Accidental Death Reports (ADRs) prepared by the police, along with the connected investigation records, had not been supplied despite repeated requests. The Court also directed that the list of documents sought by Disha Salian’s counsel be furnished to the Chief Public Prosecutor and the Investigating Officer in advance so that the relevant material could be exchanged before the next hearing. The Court further observed that if the requested material was not supplied or the dispute continued, the issue would be considered on the next date of hearing.
Advocate Nilesh Ojha stated in his letter that if, despite the observations and directions of the Bombay High Court, the police or the investigating agency fails to furnish the requested documents, reports, electronic records and other evidence within the stipulated period, the matter will be brought to the notice of the High Court at the next hearing.
According to the letter, such conduct may amount to a deliberate failure by the concerned police officers to discharge their statutory and constitutional duties, allegedly with the effect of protecting the persons against whom allegations have been made, unlawful interference with the due administration of justice, obstruction of judicial proceedings, disregard of the Court’s directions, failure to comply with the judicial process and serious official misconduct. The petitioners state that, in such an event, they will request the High Court to initiate appropriate proceedings against the responsible officers, including contempt of court, adverse orders, punitive costs and such other judicial or legal action as may be considered appropriate in accordance with law.
The letter further seeks disclosure of the reasons why, despite the binding judgments of the Supreme Court in Amit Kumar v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 631, Sindhu Janak Nagargoje v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1833, and the Bombay High Court decision in Priya Gunaji Gaonkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 5139, an FIR was allegedly not registered under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure despite allegations of serious cognizable offences including murder and gang rape. The letter contends that these judgments hold that once information disclosing a cognizable offence is received, the police are duty-bound to register an FIR and cannot refuse registration on the basis of an inquiry under Section 174 CrPC, an ADR, a post-mortem report or a medical opinion.
The petitioners have also sought disclosure of the names of the officers who allegedly decided not to follow the binding precedents, together with all file notings, legal opinions, approvals, internal correspondence and records relating to the decision-making process.
The document request is extensive. It seeks the complete record of the original ADR inquiry conducted in 2021, the entire record of the recent SIT inquiry, statements of all witnesses, summons and notices issued to witnesses, mobile tower location records, Call Detail Records (CDRs), IPDRs and digital data relating to all accused persons, suspects, connected individuals and police officers involved in the investigation. It also seeks the post-mortem video, medical records, forensic reports, scene reconstruction reports and videos, original photographs, photographic negatives, crime scene panchnamas, forensic clone images of mobile phones, digital forensic records, and certified copies of all correspondence, file notings and legal opinions exchanged with the Bihar Police, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) and other Central and State Government agencies.
The petitioners have also sought records relating to compliance with Section 176(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to ascertain whether Satish Salian, the father of the deceased, was given statutory notice and an opportunity to remain present during every material stage of the original ADR inquiry conducted by the local police as well as the subsequent SIT inquiry. According to the letter, the purpose of Section 176(4) is to ensure that inquiries into suspicious deaths are conducted transparently in the presence and with the participation of the deceased’s close relatives. The petitioners have therefore sought records showing whether notices were issued to Satish Salian for important stages such as recording of witness statements, inspection of the scene, collection of evidence, forensic procedures, scene reconstruction and other material investigative steps, and if not, the reasons recorded for such omission together with the relevant file notings, approvals and official records.
The letter concludes by stating that all the requested records are necessary to enable the petitioners to effectively assist the High Court at the next hearing and to ensure a fair and informed adjudication of the issues pending before the Court. Accordingly, the Chief Public Prosecutor and the Investigating Officer have been requested to furnish the entire record within three days.
