 were apprised of a completely unchanged situation, a year and seven months after the disappearance of the student from his hostel){kind=link}
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
In the case of the disappearance of Jawaharlal Nehru University student Najeeb Ahmed, the Delhi High Court bench of Justices S Muralidhar and I S Mehta on Tuesday (November 14) were apprised of a completely unchanged situation, a year and seven months after the disappearance of the student from his hostel.
The case is a habeas corpus, filed by Mrs Fatima Nafees, mother of Najeeb.
On Tuesday, the court was re-informed by the counsel that the warden knew Najeeb was threatened by eight students. In all 161 students gave statements against these eight students. A year and seven months hav passed but they are free. Threatening to kill a man is not an ordinary thing. Please send mobile to investigation cell. The analysis of the phone is required. The prime accused is free. The police filed charge-sheet without arresting them. They mislead the court for one year. The state report has been handed over to the court. The state report reflects the further steps. The vice-chancellor didn’t allowed sniffer dog to check.
A new status report has to be submitted.
On the last date of hearing the CBI had submitted a status report. That status reports explains the steps being taken to trace the missing person.
The court said it was surprised that the application for polygraphic 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. This delay was not needed, the court had maintained.
The court ordered 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 granting such a long date in this case?
—India Legal Bureau