2 yrs on, HC allows CBI to file closure report in missing JNU student case
UNTRACEABLE The probe by agency was not ‘tardy and slow’: Court
Nearly two years after JNU student Najeeb Ahmed went missing from campus and the police as well as the CBI unsuccessfully investigated his disappearance, the Delhi High Court Monday allowed filing of a closure report in the matter, saying the probe by the premier investigative agency was not “tardy and slow”.
A bench of Justices S Muralidhar and Vinod Goel while disposing of the habeas corpus petition moved by the student’s mother, Fatima Nafees, said the probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was not “tardy and slow” as was contended by her and rejected her claim that it wanted to file the closure report due to “political compulsions”.
“This court is, for the reasons discussed hereafter, not persuaded that the CBI is tardy and slow in the investigation or that it has not taken steps that are required to be taken in the matter.
“In the present case, this court Oct 14: Najeeb (in pic) goes missing after altercation with some ABVP students Oct 20: Home Minister Rajnath Singh asks police to set up special team to trace him Nov 25: Najeeb's mother moves
Delhi HC for tracing son
Nov 28: HC asks city police to "cut across all political barriers" and to find Najeeb
Dec 9: HC slams cops for failure
to trace Najeeb
Feb 13: HC "foxed" by lack of information on Najeeb's whereabout; family seeks to handover probe to some other agency has in fact monitored the investigation thus far of the CBI and has not been persuaded to agree with the petitioner that the CBI has not acted fairly or that it has been under any influence or political compulsions in its decision to file a closure report,” the bench said.
The CBI, which had taken over the probe on May 16 last May 15: Police file charge sheet in case related to making ransom call to relatives of Najeeb demanding ~20 lakh for his release May 16: HC transfers
case to CBI April 2: HC pulls up CBI's forensic lab in Chandigarh for laxity in examining the suspect students' mobile phones
May 11: CBI tells HC that no evidence found to show any crime was committed
Sep 4: HC reserves judgement in the case after CBI says it wants to file a closure report
Oct 8: HC allows CBI to file closure report in the investigation. year, said it had looked into all the aspects of the case and was of the opinion that no offence was committed against the missing student.
Ahmed had gone missing from the Mahi-Mandvi hostel of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) here on October 15, 2016, following a scuffle with some stu- dents allegedly affiliated to the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) the previous night.
As the Delhi Police remained clueless about Ahmed’s whereabouts, the probe was handed over to the CBI on May 16 last year.
The Delhi Police had not opposed the handing over of the investigation in the case, saying it had done its bit in the matter.
Fatima’s counsel, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, had during contended that under the Minnesota Protocol they were entitled to peruse the status reports filed by the CBI in the matter.
Dealing with the argument, the bench said in the present case, at every stage of the hearing, Fatima was aware of the filing of the status reports -- initially by the Delhi Police and later by the CBI.
The bench further said that once CBI files its closure report, the complainant may file a ‘protest petition’ opposing it and thereafter, she will be “provided with full excess to the closure report and the materials on which it is based”.
WILL APPROACH SC, SAYS NAJEEB’S MOM
Within hours of the Delhi High Court allowing the CBI to file a closure report in the case of missing JNU student, Najeeb Ahmed, his mother Fatima Nafees said the family would approach the Supreme Court.
“We never had any faith in the CBI, which is why we had requested for a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the case. Why should we accept the closure report of an agency that has done no investigation till date? Have they come up with any concrete leads till date, so why should we accept their closure report,” Nafees said, over the phone.
The woman said she had come to Delhi along with her family and would approach the Supreme Court.
“I did not trust the Delhi Police. I do not trust the CBI. They have not probed my son’s disappearance at all. I have faith in the judiciary and will approach the Supreme Court,” the woman said, adding that only a Supreme Court monitored probe by an SIT could find her son.
Since the morning of Ahmed’s disappearance, the case has been probed by three different teams of Delhi Police — local police, special investigation team of south district and the crime branch — and the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The CBI and the Delhi Police have each announced reward of ₹10 lakh for any information on Ahmed.
NEWDELHI: