Above: Mother of Najeeb Ahmed join with the Members of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union at a march to demanding proper enquiry on the mysterious disappearance of Ahmed in New Delhi (file picture). Photo: UNI
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices G S Sistani and Chander Shekhar on Monday (October 16) came down heavily on the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for the manner in which they have been conducting the investigation into the missing Jawaharlal Nehru University student Najeeb Ahmed. Najeeb had gone missing from the campus on October 15 last year.
The court not only castigated the CBI for applying at the Patiala Court for polygraph tests on the nine students who had assaulted Najeeb at the hostel, but also said that even those students’ relatives should undergo polygraph tests. Not that this polygraph tests would yield any measurable result, because polygraph test results are not admissible in court.
At the Patiala House Court of Delhi the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) had adjourned the application for polygraph test to January 24.
The Delhi bench was angry about this. The bench asked the counsel for the CBI: “Why did you not object to this (the delay)? Why didn’t you ask the court to give an early date? What was restricting you?”
When the counsel for the CBI said: “We have requested an early date,” the bench retorted: “What, after six months? Forget the high court, what is mere objective of the polygraph test?”
The case has come to high court via a habeas corpus petition filed by Fatima Nafees, mother of Najeeb.
At the last date of hearing, on September 6, the CBI filed a status report in a sealed cover. At this the petitioners had submitted in their written statement that no FIR had been registered yet against those nine students who mainly assaulted Najeeb. They contended that the police had registered a case only under section 365 of the IPC (missing person), but not against any of the students who had assaulted Najeeb.
On Monday when the CBI submitted its status report in sealed cover, the bench asked: “Why do you want it to be in a sealed cover?”
The CBI counsel submitted: “A special team is constituted to investigate the matter and they are diligently working towards the cause. More than 20 people are looking into the matter and are working with utmost care.”
At this the counsel for the petitioner said that a year has passed, and despite having 20 people in their team, they are yet to interrogate those nine prime accused so far. “No investigation has ever been conducted of those nine students,” the counsel said.
At this the CBI said that the status report “shows why we have not taken anybody into custodial interrogation.”
“Have you recorded the statements of those nine students?” the bench asked. The CBI said yes, as well as their call records.
The bench, while checking the status report, asked the CBI: “What is there to hide in this report?”
The counsel for the CBI said: “We understand the situation. A young son is missing. We are putting our extreme efforts to find the missing son. But we don’t understand dharna by the petitioner, the protest they are doing is putting a lot of pressure on us and our investigation.”
Petitioner objected and said: “Why are they protecting the accused? Why have they not checked the WhatsApp messages of those nine students?”
The CBI counsel said the CBI was doing its job.
That was when the bench saw in the status report the CBI’s request for polygraph test at the Patiala House Court.
Respondent CBI Counsel submitted that call records of those accused nine students have already been analysed, tough it is not mentioned in the status report.
The bench asked: “Why do you say ‘being analysed?’ As per the last order an officer not less than the rank of DIG should submit the status report and here you have a police inspector submitting it. The DIG has to ensure that the status report should be signed and read it before submitting in the court.
“If this is not done and we shall call the DIG,” warned the bench. The counsel for the CBI said: “He is very much aware of the status report. And the facts, we will disclose next time.”
The bench also asked why not disclose today? Why next time? “If you have done something why not disclose it?”
The CBI counsel evaded by saying “We are making all efforts.”
At that the bench said: “Shall we close the matter? Either you are not disclosing the facts or there is a complete lack of interest.”
The court rejected their plea for eight weeks and gave them three weeks. “Shall call the DIG on the next hearing and let him read it here,” said the bench.
The bench said in its report: “We are surprised that the application for polygraph test was listed in the court of CMM Patiala House, Delhi, for recording the consent of a person. The CMM has adjourned the application to January 24, 2018 for the polygraph test.
“We order the respondents CBI to make an application for an early hearing in the court of CMM Patiala House.
“No reason, why the court of CMM Patiala House has adjourned the matter for such a long date has been given. Why such a long date in this case?
“We request the concerned judge to ensure that long dates are not given, where application made for conducting polygraph test and where there is such an urgency in the matter.
“We have observed that the CBR record not analysed including the location of the accused nine students at the relevant time. The CBI should analyse the call record and WhatsApp messages of those mime accused students.
Mater was adjourned to November 14, 2017.
—India Legal Bureau