Sushant Singh Rajput’s family has gone through the CBI’s closure report. After scrutinising it, they have called it…
About five years after actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s shocking demise, the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) closure report is being slammed by the actor’s family.
Their lawyer, Advocate Varun Singh, had mentioned that the agency submitted an “incomplete and inconclusive” report and kept back crucial documents, made it difficult to legally challenge its conclusions. In March 2025, CBI filed the closure report and cleared Rhea Chakraborty and other accused individuals that were mentioned in the FIR. The report further concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that Sushant was confined, threatened, or made to face any criminal activity.
“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 said, as reported by ANI.
However, as reported by ANI while citing Advocate Singh, CBI’s submission is not complete because multiple critical annexures and important materials were never shared. The CBI was directed by the Patna Court to furnish these via 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 said, as reported by ANI.
He also mentioned that under the law, a protest petition is a complainant’s independent right to challenge a closure report. Additionally, the magistrate too can continue proceedings if inconsistencies surface.
“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 explained.
Advocate Singh said the CBI’s own language in 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 also not convinced about the manner in which financial evidence was handled. He said that money transfers in favour of the accused were not investigated properly.
“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 family’s counsel too question why forensic and digital evidence were withheld. “What is the report they received from America on digital evidence? Why is the CBI silent?” he asked. He also put emphasis on the lack of documentary evidence.
“Once access is granted to all the documents, we can establish that the closure report was not filed in a proper manner,” Singh said.
Sushant’s untimely and shocking death on June 14, 2020, at his Bandra residence led to massive outrage across the country. It also led to the transfer of the case to the CBI.
Don’t Miss Out on the Latest Updates.
Subscribe to Our Newsletter Today!
