Shri Satish Salian submitted video recordings containg testimonies of eye- witness other material evidences to the CBI. He requested the immediate arrest of Aditya Thackeray, Param Bir Singh, PI Arjun Rajane and other persons.

He requested for adding Section 409 of Indian Penal Code, where the punishment is upto life imprisonment

He also submitted chats concerning the conspiracy by Rhea Chakraborty, her brother and her father to murder Shushant Singh Rajput. These chats form the part of NCB charge-sheet.

Shri Satish Salian further requested the CBI to immediately examine Shri Sameer Wankhede and the other three Eyewitness.

He also requested immediate and adequate police protection for himself.

Representation seeks arrest and custodial interrogation of persons implicated in the complaint, examination of crucial witnesses, protection for the complainant and witnesses, and investigation into Sachin Vaze’s reinstatement

1. A connected pen drive is stated to contain the recorded testimony of a protected eyewitness identified as “X1”. According to the representation, this witness alleges that Disha Salian was subjected to gang rape and subsequently murdered, and names Aaditya Thackeray, Dino Morea, Sooraj Pancholi and Aaditya Thackeray’s bodyguards in that account. Shri Salian demands that the CBI immediately verify the recording, formally record the witness’s statement in accordance with law, investigate the allegations, and secure corroborating evidence. The witness’s identity must remain protected.
2. Shri Sameer Wankhede must be summoned and examined without avoidable delay, the representation demands. It states that Wankhede, who served as Zonal Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau, possesses relevant information, records and digital evidence arising from NCB Crime Nos. 15 of 2020 and 16 of 2020, including material concerning Rhea Chakraborty and allegations involving Aaditya Thackeray and Dino Morea.
3. The representation identifies several specific matters for examination through Wankhede: alleged
4. Shri Satish Salian, father of the late Disha Salian, through his advocate, Adv. Abhishek Mishra, has addressed a detailed representation dated 19 September 2026 to Shri Puran Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, SC-II, New Delhi, with a copy to Smt. Seema Pahuja, Superintendent of Police, Special Crime Unit, CBI. Referring to FIR No. RC0502026S0006, dated 13 September 2026, the representation demands immediate investigative action concerning the alleged gang rape and murder of Disha Salian, the destruction and manipulation of electronic evidence, and the alleged involvement of police officers and influential political persons in a subsequent cover-up.
5. The handling of the building’s CCTV DVR is a central issue requiring immediate answers. The representation alleges that Sachin Vaze took possession of the DVR installed at Disha Salian’s building without a lawful seizure panchanama or compliance with the prescribed procedure. It further alleges that Vaze, acting in conspiracy with the then Commissioner of Police, Param Bir Singh, copied the original footage onto a pen drive and retained it for the purpose of subsequently blackmailing persons implicated in the incident. Shri Salian calls upon the CBI to investigate this allegation and trace the original footage and every copy made from it.
6. The representation alleges that footage showing Aaditya Thackeray and other persons named in the complaint was removed from the DVR, and that the altered footage was subsequently copied onto a hard disk under a panchanama dated 17 June 2020. However, it states that the records show the DVR’s seizure and panchanama as occurring only on 30 September 2020, more than three months later. Who possessed the DVR during this period, who accessed it, and under whose authority was footage copied or altered? These questions concern the integrity and custody of potentially decisive evidence.
7. The representation further questions why the DVR was sent for forensic examination only after approximately five years. It records that, during the Bombay High Court hearing on 7 August 2025, the petitioner specifically raised CCTV tampering, following which the Court orally called upon the Public Prosecutor to produce the DVR’s forensic report and the prosecutor sought time. The representation alleges that the DVR was forwarded for examination only after footage covering the crucial period had been deleted.
8. The Forensic Science Laboratory, Kalina, Mumbai, report dated 11 December 2025 records that the DVR does not contain footage for 4 June 2020 to 9 June 2020. Shri Salian demands an immediate inquiry into whether the footage was deleted, destroyed or otherwise removed, who was responsible, and whether recoverable copies survive.
9. The representation identifies the statement of PSI Hasan Makbool Moolani, recorded on 7 April 2026 by SIT member Shailendra Nagarkar, in which Moolani reportedly expressed ignorance about the relevant circumstances. It also identifies the statement of the then Investigating Officer, Arjun Rajane, recorded by Nagarkar on 8 April 2026, concerning the missing hard disk and backup footage. It alleges that the backup hard disk was itself destroyed, removed or suppressed. Shri Salian demands that the CBI scrutinise these statements, establish responsibility for custody of the devices, and investigate the conduct of the officers concerned.

• The demand for Section 409 IPC to be added concerns the alleged dishonest handling of property and evidence entrusted to public servants. The representation states that, dishonest misappropriation, removal, conversion, destruction or disposal of the entrusted DVR, hard disk or other official property may attract that provision, which carries punishment extending to imprisonment for life. Shri Salian demands that the CBI examine this issue expressly and pursue the appropriate offences on the evidence.
• Param Bir Singh’s public statements and the recorded examination of the footage require particular scrutiny. The representation states that API Kanauje and other police officers officially desealed and verified the backup hard disk containing footage dated 4 June 2020 only on 6 August 2020. Yet, at a press conference on 3 August 2020, Param Bir Singh reportedly stated that the police had examined the entire CCTV footage and that nobody other than six identified individuals had entered Disha Salian’s flat.
• Shri Salian demands that the CBI establish the basis on which this public assertion was made three days before the recorded desealing and verification. The representation alleges that the press conference sought to counter reports concerning Aaditya Thackeray’s alleged involvement. It calls for investigation into whether Param Bir Singh had prior access to, knowledge of, or control over the electronic evidence, and whether his conduct formed part of the alleged manipulation and cover-up.
• In support of its demand for custodial interrogation, the representation relies upon Hemendra P. Bosmiya v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 4935, and Gulabrao Baburao Deokar v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 16 SCC 190. It invokes these decisions in the context of alleged conspiracy, manipulation or fabrication of records, and persons alleged to have benefited from those acts. Shri Salian seeks urgent consideration of arrest and custodial interrogation of Aaditya Thackeray, Param Bir Singh, Sachin Vaze, Shailendra Nagarkar, Arjun Rajane, Uddhav Thackeray, and other persons whose roles are identified in the representation, subject to the applicable legal requirements.
• The representation also identifies two more as material eye – witnesses allegedly present. It claims that mobile tower-location material places Aaditya Thackeray and other persons implicated in the complaint at or near the crime scene. Shri Salian demands immediate examination of these witnesses and verification of the relevant electronic records.