Family of Sushant Singh Rajput Questions CBI’s Closure Report

The family of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput has raised serious concerns regarding the closure report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), nearly five years after his tragic death. Advocate Varun Singh, representing the family, has criticized the agency for submitting an “incomplete and inconclusive” report while withholding key documents necessary for any legal challenge to its findings.

The CBI filed its closure report in March 2025, which cleared Rhea Chakraborty and other accused individuals mentioned in the initial FIR. According to the report, there was no evidence indicating that Rajput had been confined, threatened, or subjected to any criminal acts. Despite this, Advocate Singh asserts that the CBI’s submission falls short, as crucial annexures and materials have not been released, despite multiple court orders from the Patna court mandating their disclosure.

Singh stated to ANI, “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.” He explained that under the law, a protest petition allows the complainant to challenge a closure report, and the magistrate has the authority to continue proceedings if inconsistencies arise. “Currently, neither the complainant nor the magistrate can act because those records are missing,” he noted.

The language used by the CBI in its report has also come under scrutiny. Singh pointed out that it states, “the possibility of suicide cannot be ruled out,” indicating a lack of definitive conclusions. He questioned why the CBI opted for closure when it could not conclusively determine whether Rajput’s death was due to suicide, abetment of suicide, or homicide.

Furthermore, Singh highlighted concerns regarding the investigation into financial transactions involving the accused. He stated that the report acknowledges money transfers to the accused but fails to investigate them adequately. “Such transactions should have been examined for cheating, criminal breach of trust, or evidence of control over the victim,” he remarked, suggesting these factors could have warranted further investigation.

The family’s counsel has also raised alarms about the absence of forensic and digital evidence, including data analyzed abroad. “What is the report they received from America on digital evidence? Why is the CBI silent?” Singh questioned, emphasizing that critical materials may have been excluded from the case file submitted to the court.

He further asserted that the lack of access to both relied-upon and omitted documents undermines the investigation’s transparency. “Once access is granted to all the documents, we can establish that the closure report was not filed in a proper manner,” he stated.

The actor’s death on June 14, 2020, at his residence in Bandra, sparked nationwide outrage, leading to public demands for a CBI investigation. Singh emphasized that although the FIR was registered in 2020, it took the agency nearly five years to file its closure report, which was submitted without the necessary accompanying documents. “There was no urgency to close the case, yet it seems to have been done haphazardly. If the CBI believed the matter was ready for closure, they should have submitted the report along with all relevant records,” he added, raising significant concerns about the thoroughness of the investigation.

The Rajput family remains determined to challenge the closure report as soon as they receive access to all supporting materials. “We have sought the documents repeatedly. Unless they are provided, we won’t know on what basis the closure was filed,” Singh remarked, noting that even the magistrate cannot act without reviewing these records.

When asked about the potential influence of political pressure on the case, Singh refrained from making definitive claims but acknowledged that “the inconsistencies in the process are evident.” The CBI’s closure report has reignited discussions about the transparency and thoroughness of the investigation surrounding Rajput’s death. The family maintains that this incident was “not a simple, non-mysterious incident” and continues to advocate for a comprehensive review of the agency’s findings.

As the legal proceedings unfold, the Rajput family’s legal team is poised to move forward with a formal challenge once the complete case file is made available by the CBI.