Sushant Singh Rajput’s household has gone by means of the CBI’s closure report. After scrutinising it, they’ve referred to as it…
About 5 years after actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s surprising demise, the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) closure report is being slammed by the actor’s household.
Their lawyer, Advocate Varun Singh, had talked about that the company submitted an “incomplete and inconclusive” report and stored again essential paperwork, made it troublesome to legally problem its conclusions. In March 2025, CBI filed the closure report and cleared Rhea Chakraborty and different accused people that had been talked about within the FIR. The report additional concluded that there was no proof to counsel that Sushant was confined, threatened, or made to face any felony exercise.
“We do intend to move the court, but the major hurdle right now is that we have not been provided with the complete set of documents accompanying the closure report. Without access to the full report and annexures, it is impossible for us to file a protest petition,” Singh stated, as reported by ANI.
However, as reported by ANI whereas citing Advocate Singh, CBI’s submission just isn’t full as a result of a number of important annexures and necessary supplies had been by no means shared. The CBI was directed by the Patna Court to furnish these through six orders.
“We do intend to move the court, but the major hurdle right now is that we have not been provided with the complete set of documents accompanying the closure report. Without access to the full report and annexures, it is impossible for us to file a protest petition,” Singh stated, as reported by ANI.
He additionally talked about that below the legislation, a protest petition is a complainant’s unbiased proper to problem a closure report. Additionally, the Justice of the Peace can also proceed proceedings if inconsistencies floor.
“But for that, both the complainant and the magistrate must have access to the annexed documents. At present, neither can act because those records are missing, even though more than seven months have passed since the CBI filed its report,” he defined.
Advocate Singh stated the CBI’s personal language within the report denotes that the findings are indefinitive. “The report states that ‘the possibility of suicide cannot be ruled out.’ That means the conclusion is uncertain. If the agency could not conclusively determine whether it was suicide, abetment to suicide, or homicide, should the case be closed at all? It was the CBI’s duty to establish the truth conclusively,” he added.
He was additionally not satisfied concerning the method wherein monetary proof was dealt with. He stated that cash transfers in favour of the accused weren’t investigated correctly.
“Such transactions should have been examined for cheating, criminal breach of trust, or evidence of control over the victim. Any of these could have justified further investigation instead of premature closure,” Singh added.
The household’s counsel too query why forensic and digital proof had been withheld. “What is the report they received from America on digital evidence? Why is the CBI silent?” he requested. He additionally put emphasis on the dearth of documentary proof.
“Once access is granted to all the documents, we can establish that the closure report was not filed in a proper manner,” Singh stated.
Sushant’s premature and surprising demise on June 14, 2020, at his Bandra residence led to large outrage throughout the nation. It additionally led to the switch of the case to the CBI.
