(MENAFN- Live Mint) Late actor Sushant Singh Rajput's family is likely to challenge the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) 'closure report' on the actor's death. They reportedly called the report an "eyewash" and "an incomplete document".

The probe agency had filed two closure reports in March this year - one into the case registered by Sushant Singh's father KK Singh in Patna, alleging that Rhea and her family drove his son to suicide, and embezzled his funds. The other case was filed by Rhea against Singh's sisters in Mumbai.

What did CBI's 'closure report' say?

The CBI claimed in its 'closure report' that there is no evidence to suggest that actor Sushant Singh Rajput was“illegally confined, threatened, or provoked/abetted to commit suicide” by Rhea Chakraborty or to establish that she embezzled his funds or possessions, the Hindustan Times reported, citing sources.

They, in fact, said that Sushant called Rhea“family”.

Investigation revealed that Sushant had committed suicide.

HT exclusively accessed the details of the main closure report, which pertains to allegations against Rhea; her parents Indrajeet Chakraborty and Sandhya Chakraborty; brother Showik; Rajput's manager Shruti Modi, and house manager Samuel Miranda.

An officer, quoting details of the closure report, said,“Investigation revealed that Sushant had committed suicide. None of the accused persons had lived/stayed with him between June 8, 2020 and June 14, 2020 (the day he was found hanging in his Bandra flat)."

"Rhea and her brother Showik left the house on June 8, and thereafter didn't visit the house. Sushant had spoken to Showik on June 10 through WhatsApp at 1441 hours but had no conversations with Rhea between June 8 and June 14, the report claimed.

It added that the evidence had not come on record to show the meeting of Sushant with Rhea or any of her family members of being in touch by any other means.

"Shruti Modi had stopped visiting Sushant's house since she fractured her leg in February. Furthermore, Meetu Singh (sister of Sushant) had stayed with him in his flat from June 8 to June 12,” the officer said.

“Therefore, no evidence of any immediate provocation/abetment by any of the accused person has come on record which may had led Sushant to commit suicide,” the report added, according to the officer.

The CBI report also said“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."

On the allegations of theft and embezzlement of funds by Rhea, the CBI, according to a second officer, said in the report that“when Rhea, along with her brother, left Sushant's house on June 8, she took away her Apple laptop and Apple wristwatch which were gifted to her by Sushant."

No evidence of any immediate provocation/abetment by any of the accused person has come on record which may had led Sushant to commit suicide.

"No evidence has emerged during investigation about any property dishonestly taken out of the possession of Sushant without his knowledge by Rhea or any other accused person," the officer said.

“The only allegation that has been levelled by the family of Sushant is that he told them that Rhea threatened to make his medical records public, in case he doesn't toe her line. However, this evidence is in the realm of hearsay," it was claimed.

'An eyewash'

Terming it an eyewash and an incomplete document, Rajput's family and legal team decided to challenge the closure report, their lawyer Varun Singh said.

“This is nothing but an eyewash. If the CBI really wanted to come out with the truth, it would have submitted all the supporting case documents including chats, technical records, statements of witnesses, medical records, etc in the court along with the final (closure) report, which they have not done. We will file a protest petition against this closure report, which is based on a shoddy investigation”, Singh was quoted as saying.

Sushant's family lawyer Advocate Varun Singh also said,“Simply saying Sushant Singh'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 the court of law”.

MENAFN22102025007365015876ID1110235223