The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the CBI to probe the case of missing Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Najeeb Ahmad, who has been untraced since he disappeared seven months ago after an alleged altercation with ABVP members.
A division bench of Justice G.S. Sistani and Justice Rekha Palli handed over the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with immediate effect, after the Delhi Police said it has no objection if the court transfers the case to another probe agency.
Advocate Rahul Mehra, appearing for the Delhi police, told the court that it has carried out the investigation in fair manner and made a pan India search for Ahmad, but he could not be traced.
"Delhi Police has no objection if matter is probed by any other investigating agency... We refer the matter to CBI with immediate effect for further investigation," said the bench.
The court's direction came while hearing a habeas corpus plea filed by Fatima Nafees, Najeeb Ahmad's mother, that her son be produced by police and the Delhi government before the court.
Najeeb, 27, a first year M.Sc. student, went missing from his JNU hostel on the night of October 14-15 last year, allegedly after a row with members of RSS' student wing Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP).
The ABVP has denied any involvement in his disappearance.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who appeared for the student's mother, had sought to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) with officers from other states. He said the enquiry by Delhi police was "politically motivated".
The counsel said that the nine suspected students, who assaulted and threatened Ahmad before he went missing, were given "VIP treatment" by the police and their custodial interrogation was not taken till date.
He said there have been delays at every level and various lapses in the probe of Delhi police.
Earlier, the court had pulled up the police for not questioning the nine students on day one and for not taking them into custody.
The nine students have neither given their consent nor refusal for a lie detector test in the case. The court had said that it can not force them to take the polygraph test but they themselves should come forward and give consent.
The court now posted the matter for July 17.
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)