The court was further irked when it found that the report was prepared by a CBI Inspector, while the DIG was supposed to supervise the case according to a May 16 order
The Delhi High Court on Monday pulled up the CBI for its "complete lack of interest" in probing the case of JNU student Najeeb Ahmed who has not been found a year after he mysteriously went missing from his hostel.
There was high drama even outside the court where the 27-year-old's mother, Fatima Nafees, was dragged by the police as she resisted her detention while protesting with a group of JNU students. She and about 35 people, mostly students, were detained and later released.
In the court, Justices GS Sistani and Chander Shekhar expressed displeasure over contradictions in oral submissions and a report filed by the CBI, which took over the case from the Delhi police five months ago.
In its oral submissions, the CBI said that calls and messages of suspects had been analysed. But in its report, the agency said that data is "being analysed."
"Then why have you not said what you found in your analysis?" the division bench asked, while warning that the DIG will be summoned to the court to explain the agency's conduct.
"There is nothing on the status report (by CBI). There was more in the Delhi police reports. We are saying there is complete lack of interest (by CBI). There is no result either way. No result even on paper."
A student of MSc Biotechnology, Najeeb went missing from his room number 106 of Mahi Mandvi hostel on the intervening night of October 15-16, 2016, after an altercation with some students affiliated with ABVP the previous night.
The court was further irked when it found that the report was prepared by a CBI Inspector, while the DIG was supposed to supervise the case according to a May 16 order.
"What sort of supervision is this? If this is the supervision by the DIG, then what would happen if there is no supervision? Does the DIG read what the Inspector has said in the report? He probably does not get time to read reports there (in office). Let him come here and read it then," the court said.
The bench said the CBI was inviting the court's displeasure though its own actions. The court allowed the CBI time till November 14 to file a report, submitting its findings after analysing the call data records of nine students suspected to be behind Najeeb's disappearance.
The court also directed the CBI to move an application for an early hearing in the trial court on a plea seeking permission for a polygraph test on suspects, after it was learnt that the matter was adjourned to January 24, 2018. The bench directed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate not to give such long dates in pleas for polygraph tests, observing that it would defeat the purpose, especially in such a matter of great urgency.
The Delhi Police had set up a Special Investigating Team to trace the student last year, and transferred the case to the Crime Branch after it could not find him. The police also announced Rs 10 lakh for information that could help locate him after directions from Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh.
Fatima approached the Delhi High Court, demanding a CBI inquiry into Najeeb's case after the Delhi Police failed to find him. The CBI took over the probe after the court's directions in April. The court also rebuked the police for wasting time. The CBI had on June 1 filed a case of "kidnapping for secret and wrongful confinement" against unknown persons.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Delhi High Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}