A spot panchnama conducted more than nine hours after Disha Salian’s death, police officers seen at the building before the death was officially recorded, unexplained discrepancies in the accidental death report and forensic samples, and the delayed seizure of her phone and laptop were among 10 circumstances that the Bombay High Court on Wednesday said raised “reasonable suspicions” and required a fresh probe.

While directing the CBI to register an FIR and investigate the June 2020 death of Salian, former manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, a bench of Justices Sarang V Kotwal and Ranjitsinha R Bhonsale said the Mumbai Police investigation “raises more questions than it answers”.

The court stressed that these observations were made only while deciding whether an FIR and fresh investigation were warranted, and directed the CBI to investigate the case independently “in all aspects”

The 10 circumstances flagged by the HC:

1. Spot panchnama delayed

Story continues below this ad

Police reached the spot “very shortly after the incident”, but the panchnama was conducted more than nine hours later. The HC said the delay, particularly in view of indications that police suspected foul play, and “quite significant” events prior to registration of ADR remained unexplained and raised “reasonable suspicion” about the initial investigation.

2. ADR timing questioned

The death occurred at 2.25 am on June 9, while the ADR was registered at 3.07 am. Yet the ADR referred to her parents’ statements saying they had no suspicion, although her father reached the hospital only around 4 am. The HC said it was unexplained how his statement could have been referred to in the earlier ADR.

3. Police presence before death recorded

CCTV showed police personnel at the building between 1 am and 2.14 am. The HC found no explanation in the ADR or subsequent investigation about why they were there, who they were or what they did.

4. Blood evidence not explained

Two witnesses in ‘important’ statements said Salian had fallen on her face and blood was oozing from her head. Yet police did not collect blood-stained soil, while they recorded no bleeding injury to the head except an injury to the chin.

5. Injuries raised questions

Story continues below this ad

The HC found it “difficult to accept” that a fall from the 12th floor onto the face resulted in only a chin injury, with no fracture to the face, nose or jaw, despite skull and rib fractures. It said the issue would require expert assessment.

6. Chemical analyser flagged ‘less blood’

An Assistant Chemical Analyzer told police that articles from such a fall would be expected to contain more blood. But when the articles were opened, there was “less blood”. The HC noted that police themselves appeared unsure why Salian’s clothes had less blood when they questioned the postmortem doctor.

7. No damage to door

A witness said Salian had locked herself in a bedroom and the door was forced open. But the spot panchnama recorded no damage to the door or lock, which the HC found unexplained.

8. FSL samples did not match report

The postmortem report referred to specific swab samples, but the envelopes sent to the FSL contained slide smears. Doctors attributed this to a clerical error, but the HC called the discrepancy a “glaring feature”.

9. Questions over seizure records

Story continues below this ad

The HC questioned why police asked the postmortem doctor about the condition in which Salian was brought if police were already aware that her clothes had been seized. “Then there was no occasion to ask the doctor,” it said.

10. Phone, laptop seized eight days later

The court said Salian’s mobile phone and laptop were “important” evidence but were not seized during the June 9 spot panchnama. They were seized only on June 17 from her friend’s custody.

The HC said the circumstances, taken together, warranted registration of an FIR and a fresh investigation, particularly to ensure that evidence was not destroyed or lost with the passage of time.

However, it cautioned against treating its observations as findings against any individual. The CBI, it said, must determine during its investigation whether there are sufficient grounds to raise suspicion against anyone and whether an offence was committed.