Nearly five years after the tragic death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, the case has once again resurfaced in public and legal discourse — this time due to serious objections raised by the late actor’s family over the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) closure report.

The family’s counsel, Advocate Varun Singh, has accused the agency of submitting an “incomplete and inconclusive” report, claiming that crucial annexures and supporting documents have been withheld despite multiple court orders. According to him, this lack of transparency has effectively prevented the family from pursuing a legal challenge against the CBI’s findings.

Family Alleges Key Documents Are Missing

The CBI submitted its closure report in March 2025, almost five years after Rajput’s death, giving a clean chit to Rhea Chakraborty and other accused individuals named in the FIR. The report concluded that there was no evidence suggesting that Sushant was “confined, threatened, or subjected to any criminal act.”

However, Advocate Singh told ANI that the report remains “deficient” because several vital materials were never shared — despite six orders from the Patna court instructing the CBI to provide them.

“We do intend to move the court,” Singh said, “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.”

He further explained that under Indian law, a protest petition is the complainant’s right to challenge a closure report. The magistrate also holds the authority to continue proceedings if inconsistencies are found — but only if all documents are available for review.

“At present, neither the complainant nor the magistrate can act because those records are missing, even though more than seven months have passed since the CBI filed its report,” Singh emphasized.

CBI’s Findings Called ‘Uncertain’ and ‘Inconclusive’

The family’s lawyer pointed to the CBI’s own language as evidence of doubt within the report.

“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 remarked.

He also criticized the handling of financial transactions, noting that while the report acknowledged money transfers in favour of the accused, it failed to properly investigate whether those transactions pointed to cheating, criminal breach of trust, or financial control over the victim.

“Such transactions should have been examined carefully. Any of these could have justified further investigation instead of premature closure,” Singh added.

Questions Over Digital and Forensic Evidence

The family has also raised red flags about withheld forensic and digital evidence, particularly data analyzed abroad.

“What is the report they received from America on digital evidence? Why is the CBI silent?” Singh questioned, suggesting that crucial materials were omitted from the case file submitted to court.

He underscored that the absence of complete documentation undermines transparency.

“Once access is granted to all the documents, we can establish that the closure report was not filed in a proper manner,” he asserted.

Five-Year Wait Ends With an Incomplete Report

Sushant Singh Rajput’s death on June 14, 2020, at his Bandra residence, shocked the nation and triggered widespread outrage. The incident led to the transfer of the investigation to the CBI following intense public pressure and demands from his family.

Singh highlighted that although the FIR was registered in 2020, it took the agency five years to file its closure report — which, according to him, was still incomplete.

“There was no urgency to close the case, yet it appears to have been done in a haphazard manner. If the CBI believed the matter was ready for closure, they should have submitted the report along with all relevant records. Filing an incomplete report after five years raises serious questions about how the investigation was concluded,” he said.

The Rajput family has maintained that they will challenge the report once they receive all the supporting materials.

“We have sought the documents again and again. Unless they are provided, we won’t know on what basis the closure was filed,” Singh noted, adding that even the magistrate cannot take further action without reviewing them.

Family Rejects CBI Report, Calls It ‘Eyewash’

The CBI’s closure report declared that there was no proof suggesting Sushant was unlawfully confined, coerced, or pushed to commit suicide by Rhea Chakraborty. It also stated that she had not misused his money or belongings. The report further revealed that Rajput had referred to Rhea as “family” in one of his communications — a finding that has sparked mixed reactions.

Despite these conclusions, the family’s legal team strongly disagrees. They allege that the closure report is “superficial, incomplete, and misleading.”

“This is nothing but an eyewash,” said Advocate Varun Singh, as quoted by the Hindustan Times. “If the CBI really wanted to come out with the truth, it would have submitted all supporting documents — chats, technical records, witness statements, and medical reports — along with the final report. They have not done that.”

The family is preparing to file a protest petition challenging what they describe as a “shoddy investigation.”

Details from the Closure Report: Timeline of Events

According to the closure report, Sushant Singh Rajput was found dead on June 14, 2020, in his Bandra flat. Investigators noted that none of the accused — including Rhea Chakraborty or her brother Showik — had stayed with him between June 8 and June 14, 2020.

Rhea and Showik reportedly left the house on June 8 and did not return. While Sushant spoke to Showik on June 10 via WhatsApp, he had no communication with Rhea during the week leading up to his death.

Evidence did not show that Sushant met or spoke with Rhea or any of her family members during that period. The report also mentions that Shruti Modi, his former manager, had stopped visiting his house since she fractured her leg in February. Meanwhile, Meetu Singh, Sushant’s sister, stayed with him between June 8 and June 12.

No Evidence of Provocation or Abetment Found

A CBI officer concluded in the report that no immediate provocation or abetment by any of the accused was evident in the records.

“No evidence has come on record suggesting that Sushant was illegally confined or restrained in any manner by any of the accused or any other person,” the report stated.

Rhea Chakraborty and Property Claims

Sushant’s father had accused Rhea and her family of emotionally pressuring the actor and misappropriating his assets. The CBI, however, dismissed these allegations, noting that when Rhea and her brother left Sushant’s residence on June 8, she took only her Apple laptop and wristwatch, both gifts from Sushant himself.

“No evidence has emerged during the investigation about any property dishonestly taken out of Sushant’s possession without his knowledge by Rhea or any other accused person,” the agency noted.

The only allegation that remained, according to the report, was that Rhea had threatened to make Sushant’s medical records public — a claim the agency described as “hearsay.”

Family Lawyer’s Critique of Financial Findings

Advocate Varun Singh dismissed the CBI’s assertions regarding Sushant’s finances as unsubstantiated.

“Simply saying Sushant’s account has not been used to take out funds is not enough. The CBI should have provided the bank statement to back its claim. It’s a flimsy report, which won’t stand in court,” he said.

The Patna court is expected to take up the closure report case on December 20.

Disclaimer- The information above is based on reports and statements made by parties involved in the ongoing legal proceedings. The allegations have not been proven in court, and the publication does not assert their truth. The case remains under judicial consideration.

Beyond the Case: Sushant Singh Rajput’s Cousin Enters Politics

In a separate development, Divya Gautam, cousin of Sushant Singh Rajput, is making her electoral debut as the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation candidate from Digha in the upcoming Bihar Assembly elections, according to a Times of India report.

While Sushant found fame in Bollywood through acclaimed films like MS Dhoni: The Untold Story, Kai Po Che!, and Chhichhore, Gautam’s journey merged theatre, activism, and politics.

“I remember him as an artiste,” she said. “No matter what, I will always do one or two plays every year. It will be my tribute to theatre and to him.”

At 34, Gautam has spent over a decade working with Left cultural groups and has built a reputation as a theatre activist, academic, and political organiser.

Her activism began in her teens after attending a Cinema of Resistance film festival in Patna, where she was moved by films such as Majid Majidi’s Children of Heaven and documentaries like Gadi Lohardaga Mail on displacement and forest rights.

“I wasn’t interested in the bazaar of competitive exams for engineers. I failed those tests,” she admitted, recounting her decision to pursue arts and activism instead.

Born in Saharsa, Gautam joined Patna College, becoming deeply involved in student theatre and Left cultural movements. She performed in socially driven plays like Mannu Bhandari’s Mahabhoj, organized screenings, and held discussions on issues like the Occupy Wall Street movement to highlight global inequalities.

During her mass communication studies, she also led campaigns for better academic infrastructure, protesting the lack of basic facilities such as cameras, studios, and libraries.

In 2012, she contested the Patna University Students’ Union election on an AISA ticket, narrowly losing to an ABVP candidate. The same year, she formally joined the CPIML(L).

The nationwide protests following the 2012 Delhi gangrape further deepened her activism. Through street plays like Bekhauf Azaadi, Gautam addressed women’s safety and consent issues, using art as a medium for change.

Now entering the electoral arena, she says:

“The stage has changed, but the message remains the same — to speak up for those unheard.”

Final Thoughts

Five years after Sushant Singh Rajput’s untimely death, questions about justice, transparency, and accountability continue to echo. As his family prepares to challenge the CBI’s closure report and his cousin steps into the political spotlight, the legacy of the actor — both as an artist and a symbol of unresolved truth — remains deeply entwined with India’s cultural and legal landscape.

With inputs from agencies

Image Source: Multiple agencies

© Copyright 2025. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Vygr Media.