Najeeb (27), a student of M.Sc Biotechnology, had gone missing from the Mahi-Mandvi hostel of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) on October 15 last year following a scuffle with some other students, allegedly affiliated to the Sangh Parivar student wing Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the previous night.
A bench of Justices G S Sistani and Chander Shekhar said during arguments, it was "very unhappy" with CBI after contradictions appeared in what was orally submitted in the court and what it has indicated in its status report.
When the court was told that the status report was prepared by an Inspector in CBI, the bench said as per its May 16 order, transferring probe to the agency, an officer of rank not less than DIG has to supervise the investigation.
"What sort of supervision is this? If this 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 these observations" by its own conduct and gave it time till November 14 to file a report stating what it has found after analysing the call data records of the nine students suspected of being behind Najeeb's disappearance.
The scathing remarks by the bench came after CBI in its report said the calls and messages of the suspects were "being analysed", while in its oral submission it claimed that the call data records have already been analysed.
The CBI was also directed to move an application in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) for an early hearing of its plea, which has been adjourned to January 24, 2018, for seeking consent of the suspect students for a polygraph test.
The bench also gave directions to the CMM not to give such long dates in pleas for polygraph tests, especially in such a matter where there is urgency, saying it would defeat the purpose.
After over a month had passed since Najeeb went missing, his mother had moved the High Court on November 25 last year, seeking directions to the police to trace her son.
The high court had immediately directed the Delhi Police to "explore all angles" and "cut across political barriers" to trace the young man, saying no one could just vanish from the heart of the national capital.
However, as the police were clueless about Najeeb's whereabouts even after seven months since he went missing, the probe was handed over to CBI on May 16, 2017.
On September 6, the court again directed the CBI to take steps to trace Najeeb.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
