Delhi HC allows CBI to file closure report in missing JNU student case

 

Investigation into the mysterious disappearance of JNU student Najeeb Ahmed, who went missing from the university nearly two years ago, came to an end on Monday as the Delhi High Court allowed CBI to file a closure report in the matter.

The high court did not agree with the allegation of Ahmed's mother, Fatima Nafees, that CBI wanted to file the closure report due to "political compulsions".

A bench of Justices S Muralidhar and Vinod Goel also dismissed her allegation that the probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was "tardy and slow".

The bench said: "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 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 CBI, which had taken over the probe on May 16 last year, after more than a year of investigation 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 students allegedly affiliated to the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) the previous night.

As the Delhi Police remained clueless about Ahmed's whereabouts even after seven months of his going missing, 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 the proceedings contended that under the Minnesota Protocol they were entitled to peruse the status reports filed by the CBI in the matter.

Disposing of her habeas corpus petition, 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 court said the status reports might also contain details of the case diary of the investigating agency and these are not shared with anyone, be it the suspect or the complainant.

"It is to be perused only by the court. There is no requirement of sharing the details in the case diary with the complainant," the court said.
 

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".

"Subject to terms with which the complainant (Fatima) would have to comply, the criminal court concerned will provide such access and perhaps also furnish copy of the entire closure report and such of the documents which formed the basis for the recommendation for such closure," it said and added that in this way the requirements of the Minnesota Protocol would be met.

The Minnesota Protocoal is the revised United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions.

The bench, in its 34-page judgement, also rejected Fatima's plea for entrusting the investigation to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) whose work would be monitored by the high court, thus removing the CBI from the picture.

It said it has monitored the CBI investigation up to the stage where the agency was in a position to file a closure report before the concerned trial court and what should happen after that was for the lower court to decide.

"Consequently, the prayer of the petitioner (Fatima) that the court should constitute an SIT and monitor its work, thus removing the CBI from the picture, has to be declined," the bench said and added that it leaves it open to the student's mother to raise all the contentions available to her in accordance with law before the concerned trial court.