Family of youngster missing for almost a year ago moves Kerala HC for CBI probe
The family of Adam Jo Antony, a youngster from Palluruthy who went missing hardly a fortnight before his 20th birthday, has moved the Kerala High Court demanding a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into his mysterious disappearance after the Kerala Police failed to make a breakthrough in the case almost a year after.
Jo had gone for his routine early morning cycling on July 28, 2024. CCTV footage from his immediate neighbourhood showed Jo on the road at 3.19 a.m. on the day he went missing. Thereafter, he was untraceable. He had neither taken his wallet nor his mobile phone, which made tracking him by tower location impossible.
'Our demand for a CBI probe is not out of our dissatisfaction over the police probe. They are indeed investigating and keeping us informed. But it is now 312 days since he went missing, and there is no hint of where he is or what happened to him,' said K.J. Antony, Jo's father. He filed a habeas corpus petition in the Kerala High Court, urging the police to produce his son in November 2024. The latest hearing was held on Tuesday (June 03, 2025).
After the initial probe by the local police made little headway, District Police Chief (Kochi City) Putta Vimaladitya formed a Special Investigation Team headed by the Mattancherry Assistant Commissioner in September 2024. Later, another team led by the Deputy Commissioner was put in charge of the probe following the habeas corpus petition. The police have been submitting fortnightly reports to the court since then.
The police have also been coordinating with their counterparts in other States like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Delhi, and even Himachal Pradesh. Police teams going to other States to investigate other cases are also being asked to take up this missing case with the local police there.
Besides, the police have been to places within and outside Kerala that Jo had visited before he went missing. Spots where he could have likely abandoned his cycle or sold it have also been covered. The police are also in touch with Malayali associations in other States. The possibility of the youngster working somewhere incognito and the identity of victims involved in accidents or mishaps is also looked into.
The incident has taken a heavy toll on the youngster's family, not the least on his 14-year-old younger sibling.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
HC adjourns bail pleas in TTD ghee case to June 17
VIJAYAWADA: The High Court adjourned to June 17 the hearing on bail pleas filed in connection with the supply of adulterated ghee to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) case. Several accused, including directors of Bhole Baba Dairy, Vaishnavi Dairy, and the managing director of AR Dairy, have sought bail, with the CBI-led SIT having filed a chargesheet. Advocates CV Mohan Reddy and S Sriram, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the accused have been in judicial custody for four months, and with all evidence collected, there is no risk of tampering. Bhole Baba and Vaishnavi Dairies had no direct role in the dairy supply agreement, they said. However, the CBI counsel contended that Bhole Baba Dairy was central to the scam, and claimed accused intimidated a key witness, accountant Ashish Rohilla, who was allegedly coerced at Tirupati airport and sent back to Delhi.
India Today
3 hours ago
- India Today
4 Manipur police ex-commandos charged after 26 years in 1998 'fake' encounter
The Imphal West Sessions Court on Thursday framed charges against four former Manipur police commandos in connection with the alleged fake encounter of Major Shimreingam Shaiza and four others in incident took place nearly 26 years ago on August 29, 1998 and has remained a symbol of delayed justice in Manipur. The court named Thokchom Krishnatombi, then a Sub-Inspector, and constables Khundongbam Inaobi, Thangkhongam Lungdim, and Md Akhtar Hussain as accused in the case. advertisementCharges have been framed under IPC Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) and 34 (acts done with common intention). Major Shaiza, brother of former Manipur Chief Minister Yangmasho Shaiza, was travelling in a vehicle reportedly bearing a Nagaland number plate along with four others when he was allegedly killed in a fake encounter. Manipur police, in its investigation had claimed that it was an encounter with armed over time, those claims began to unravel. The FIR filed by SI Krishnatombi alleged the vehicle failed to stop at a police signal and opened fire, prompting retaliation. But eyewitnesses and the victims' families disputed this version, asserting the firing was unprovoked and targeted.A second FIR, filed later by Major Shaiza's wife, Pemla Shaiza, described the incident as a cold-blooded killing of innocent civilians, including prominent figures such as Thenucho, a former Nagaland Assembly Speaker and Nagaland Police case remained stagnant for years until the Supreme Court intervened in July 2017, directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the case. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted and was assisted by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in its probe. The Justice C Upendra Commission of Inquiry also supported the SIT's findings indicated that the weapons allegedly recovered from the vehicle were likely planted and the "encounter" was staged to cover up deliberate killings. Following this, the CBI filed a charge sheet in June 2020, naming six commando personnel. While the court has now found sufficient grounds to frame charges against four of them, proceedings against the remaining have stalled as the Manipur government's Home Department has denied prosecution sanction. Trending Reel
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Himachal: CBI probe to continue into Negi's death case
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe will continue into the death of Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited chief engineer-cum-general manager Vimal Negi as the double bench of the Himachal Pradesh high court on Thursday refused to interfere with the decision to transfer the investigation to the CBI, terming that part of the plea as non-maintainable. Though a division bench comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma partial relief to superintendent of police Sanjeev Gandhi has accepted the plea only to the extent that it pertains to the personal and professional reputation of Gandhi and the other SIT members, stating that their professional standing should not be undermined. The division bench while hearing Gandhi's Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), refused to 'modify' and interfere with the transfer of the probe to the CBI, but issued notices to all respondents, including the Union of India, the CBI, the State of Himachal Pradesh and the family of the deceased, on the issue of personal and professional remarks made against Gandhi and the Special Investigation Team (SIT) he had constituted. The High Court has now issued notices to all parties involved in the original proceedings, the Union of India, CBI, State Government, and the deceased's family on the limited issue of personal and professional comments in the earlier order. The next hearing is scheduled for July 14, and respondents have been permitted to file replies in the meantime. The court held that observations made by Justice Ajay Mohan Goel in its order of May 23, against Gandhi, as supervising authority of the SIT, were not maintainable to the extent that they impacted his service record. The court, however, refused to interfere with the decision to transfer the investigation to the CBI, terming that part of the plea as non-maintainable. It reiterated that a central agency probe is warranted to ensure crucial evidence and witness statements are preserved. Gandhi's counsel, advocate Sanjeev Bhushan while speaking to reporters said, 'Our concern is professional reputation. We had investigated the matter diligently and honestly. Remarks based on reports that were never shared with us should not stand uncontested.' He had earlier argued in the court that certain references to the status reports by the DGP and ACS (Home), adopted by the single judge, 'unfairly tarnished his image'. He had submitted that the status report filed by the then Director General of Police and the report by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) had not been shown to Gandhi or the SIT, and no opportunity was provided to respond. Sanjeev Gandhi, currently on medical leave, has filed a Leave Petition in his personal capacity before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, challenging the May 23 single bench order that transferred the investigation into the mysterious death of Negi to the CBI. Gandhi through the petition has urged the high court to modify the order passed on May 23 be ordered to be 'modified to the extent that instead of handing over the investigation may be very kindly be ordered handed over to SIT being constituted by high court rather than handing over to CBI or central agency which is under control of UoI in order to avoid any conflict of interest.' Negi went missing on March 10 and his body was recovered from Bhakra Dam in Bilaspur on March 18. Kiran Negi, the deceased's wife, moved the high court on April 9 seeking a CBI probe which was allowed on May 23. Through the petition Gandhi said that as the affidavit filed by DGP HP 'was with ulterior motivate therefore the scathing observations qua the investigation based upon the said affidavit may be set aside and the contents of the said affidavit may be set aside.' The high court while allowing petition seeking CBI investigation on May 23, had observed, 'If the Director General of Police of the state himself has a concern about the fairness of the investigation, then even if this investigation is being carried out by the SIT in right earnest, it shall never instill confidence whatever may be the report of the SIT.' 'This court is of the considered view that in this case, there is an exceptional situation, which requires that the matter be investigated by the CBI,' ruled the high court while allowing the petition seeking CBI investigations.
