MUMBAI: Bombay high court bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and R R Bhonsale said the Disha Salian case “investigation carried out by police raises more questions than it answers,” hence a CBI probe was necessary. HC had last Friday reserved for orders her father’s plea to probe the death as a murder, not suicide or accident. The father’s counsel, Nilesh Ojha, cited “suspicious circumstances” to seek a CBI probe as he argued her death was “the outcome of a deep-rooted conspiracy involving powerful people”.Interact with the family with sensitivity, HC directed CBI on Wednesday. Simultaneously, “care should be taken that no innocent person is harassed and the offenders, if any, are made to face the trial,” the judgment authored by Justice Kotwal said.
Name no one withou grounds, says HC
After Disha’s father made allegations against Aaditya Thackeray, the Sena (UBT) neta intervened and through his senior counsel Sudeep Pasbola said the allegations against him were “motivated with mala fide intentions” when he was “neither directly nor indirectly connected with any alleged offence.” Pasbola expressed sympathy for Disha’s father, but said CBI cannot be directed to do a roving inquiry.Making no reference to names, HC said, “Nobody shall be treated as an accused unless in the opinion of investigating officer there are sufficient grounds to raise reasonable suspicion against him depending on the material collected during the investigation.”The state and Pasbola said the father can file a private complaint before a magistrate for police to probe. HC said with two probes that went on for almost six years, it would be improper to ask Salian to now seek a police probe order from a magistrate. The judges said Ojha is right, the magistrate has no power to direct CBI to investigate. HC held that police had sufficient opportunity, but didn’t register an FIR to conduct a thorough probe, instead they carried on a probe “inadequate and insufficient’’ in the facts of the case.HC said, “We have not made any observations against any particular individual. That would be strictly within the realm of the investigation.”Kuldeep Patil, CBI counsel, informed the court the agency had never thus far probed Disha’s death. HC, on being shown documents including the panchanama, photographs of the body, and other details from the inquiry, raised questions on various aspects it found “suspicious”, including whether injuries were consistent with a fall from such a height and details regarding clothes. Hiray argued the injuries included a skull fracture consistent with such a fall. He said neither parent raised “any suspicion’’ in their statements during two probes.Police conducted a probe under Section 174 of the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), a provision with “limited scope’’, the court said. The section is meant to find ‘cause of death’ when a death is reported as a suicide and an ADR is registered. Ojha argued for any suspicious death, police were mandated to file an FIR and then investigate.“A probe under Section 174 of CrPC at the earliest to see whether registration of FIR is necessary,’’ HC said, “…to ensure that the evidence, if any, is not destroyed or doesn’t disappear due to passage of time. The investigation cannot go on for an inordinately long time. In the present case, the investigation was carried out in two stages and it went on for about six years. This is not the object of investigation under Section 174 of CrPC,’’ the judgment stressed. HC observed, “The case requires substantive investigation of a cognisable offence.” If the probe reveals no offence, CBI is to file a closure report, HC directed, with Salian having a right to protest such closure.
