Mumbai, August 27: The Disha Salian case has gained renewed attention following a hearing at the Bombay High Court. During the proceedings, the court raised concerns regarding the investigation conducted by the Mumbai police and the actions taken under Section 174 of the CrPC. Questions arose about why an FIR was not filed despite claims of serious criminal allegations. The court emphasized that an FIR can still be registered at this stage.
After the hearing, Disha Salian’s father expressed hope for justice, stating his trust in the court. He feels that after six years, there is a chance for justice for himself, his daughter, and his wife. He criticized the closure report submitted by the police, labeling it as entirely fabricated and claiming it was designed to shield the accused.
He recounted that he arrived at the hospital on the day of Disha’s death. The police took his statement that day, asking if he suspected anyone. At that time, he stated he had no suspicions but would consider it later. A few days later, he was summoned to the Malwani police station, where officers questioned him about Disha’s education, her school and college, her job, and her colleagues.
Disha’s father noted that following her death, media reports about rape and murder were rampant, causing him significant distress. He sought relief during that tumultuous time and urged that the truth should prevail without exploiting his daughter’s death.
He has previously requested the filing of an FIR against several individuals, including Aaditya Thackeray, Rohan Rai, Suraj Pancholi, and Dino Morea. He insisted that once a case is registered, a thorough investigation should follow, leading to strict action against anyone found guilty.
Nilesh Ojha, Disha’s father’s lawyer, highlighted the importance of the hearing, stating that the court posed clear questions to the government lawyer and police regarding the legal status of the investigation conducted under Section 174. The police claimed to have conducted an investigation and recorded witness statements. However, the court questioned how an investigation could proceed under Section 174 when serious allegations of gang rape and murder were involved.
Ojha referenced Supreme Court case law, asserting that such an investigation lacks a legal basis. The court underscored that a father has the right to know the truth about his daughter’s death, necessitating a legal investigation.
The discussion also touched upon a potential CBI investigation. Ojha claimed that an intervention application filed by Aaditya Thackeray stated that a CBI investigation had occurred and he had received a clean chit. Ojha refuted this claim in court, prompting the judge to seek clarification from the CBI’s lawyer. The CBI’s lawyer confirmed that no investigation had been conducted in Disha Salian’s case, nor had any clean chit been issued.
Ojha requested the court to dismiss Aaditya Thackeray’s application based on the allegedly false affidavit, impose a hefty fine, and issue an arrest warrant. He also mentioned former police officer Sachin Vaze, alleging that he was used to suppress the case and was the mastermind behind the cover-up.
Ojha accused the authorities of fabricating CCTV footage and post-mortem reports, pointing out discrepancies in the dates mentioned in the panchnama. He claimed that while it was reported that Rohan Rai and his friends broke down a door, the police had no panchnama or other evidence to support this.
Following the hearing, Ojha expressed confidence that the legal arguments presented would lead to an order for the registration of an FIR in this case.
Leave a Comment