Latest news with #NajeebAhmed
India Today
3 days ago
- India Today
Delhi court to decide on CBI closure report in Najeeb Ahmed case on June 30
Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court will pronounce its order on the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) closure report concerning the disappearance of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Najeeb Ahmed on June 30, when it will decide on both CBI's closure report, and the petition filed by Ahmed's Mother against CBI's decision to close the decision follows the court's request for further clarifications from the prosecution regarding specific aspects of the the hearing on Thursday, the court sought details about the proctorial inquiry conducted by JNU after the incident on October 14, 2016, which involved an alleged altercation between Ahmed and members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP). It also sought information on the statements of doctors recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the CBI informed the court that one of the doctors had been treating Ahmed for court also provided the Investigating Officer with relevant files and asked for details on the other statements recorded during the investigation. Considering the clarifications made by the CBI, the court decided to re-notify the matter for orders on June Ahmed, a 27-year-old first-year MSc Biotechnology student at JNU, went missing on October 15, 2016, following an alleged scuffle with ABVP members the previous extensive investigations by the Delhi Police and later by the CBI, Ahmed's whereabouts still remain unknown. In 2018, a closure report was filed by the CBI, stating that no evidence had been found to suggest any criminal activity related to Ahmed's Reel
India Gazette
4 days ago
- India Gazette
Delhi court renotifies JNU student Najeeb Ahmed's disappearance case for order on closure report
ANI 05 Jun 2025, 22:52 GMT+10 New Delhi [India], June 5 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue court on Thursday, after getting clarification from the public prosecutor, renotified the Najeeb Ahmed disappearance case for order on a closer report and protest petition. JNU student Najeeb Ahmed has been missing since October 2016. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Jyoti Maheshwari renotified the matter for order on June 30. The court said that the public prosecutor addressed the clarification on the proctorial inquiry conducted in the incident that occured on October 14, 2016 and the statement of doctors, renotified for orders on June 30. On April 7, the court was informed that Najeeb Ahmed was not treated at Safdarjung Hospital. He was advised to get a MLC prepared but he left hospital with his friend Mohd. Quasim. Investigation officer (IO) had also informed that the statement of Quasim, Najeeb's mother Fatima, his friend in Jamia and hostel warden in JNU were recorded. It was also submitted that the statement of the auto driver was also recorded by the Delhi Police and by the court. The IO had clarified that that the statement of the doctor/ medical attendant at Safdarjung Hospital was not taken, because no document pertaining to Najeeb Ahmed's visit to Safdarjung Hospital was there. It was also clarified that the statement of hostel warden who saw Najeeb going taking an auto from JNU. Najeeb Ahmed went missing from JNU in October 2016. This case was transferred to the CBI. The agency filed a closure report in 2018. His mother Fatima Nafees had challenged the closure report. Najeeb's mother Fatima Nafees had moved a protest petition against the closure report of the CBI. (ANI)
Indian Express
4 days ago
- General
- Indian Express
Missing for nine years, where is JNU student Najeeb Ahmed?
On October 15, 2016, Najeeb Ahmed, a first-year student at Jawaharlal Nehru University, went missing. The 27-year-old, an MSc student at the School of Biotechnology, had allegedly gotten into a scuffle with some ABVP members before this. Nine years on, there is still no sign of him. At the time, Najeeb's mother had moved court, which later directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over the case. In 2018, unable to make headway and finding no further evidence, the CBI filed a closure report. On June 5 this year, Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court is likely to decide whether it will accept or decline the report. The case had sparked massive protests outside the JNU Vice-Chancellor's office in 2016; various student wings blamed the V-C for allegedly not acting decisively in the matter. In the years since, Najeeb's mother, Fatima Naees, has made fervent appeals to find her son. The Delhi Police had filed an FIR under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code (kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person) and had also announced a reward of Rs 50,000 for any information on the student. Along with this, they had identified nine people as suspects. In November 2016, dissatisfied with the efforts of the police, Naees decided to approach the Delhi High Court with a habeas corpus writ petition seeking his production. Claiming that the police's efforts were 'slow, misdirected and subjective', she had prayed for a court-monitored SIT (Special Investigation Team) to take over the case from the Delhi Police. As part of its probe, the police had sent wireless messages to the SSPs of all districts in the country on the day Najeeb went missing. They had also uploaded his details on ZIPNET, a tool for inter-state police coordination, especially to track missing persons. It also sent four teams along various routes, including Delhi-Agra, Delhi-Bulandshahr, Ghaziabad, Moradabad and Rampur in search of him. CCTV footage from Metro stations was also examined. On December 19 and 20 that year, 560 police officers also searched 1,019 acres of the JNU campus — including academic blocks, hostel complexes, water tanks and septic tanks. All these attempts eventually turned out to be futile. Six months later, on May 16, 2017, the High Court passed the case to the CBI. The CBI's investigation could also not reach a conclusion. On October 16, 2017, the Delhi High Court pulled up the central agency, stating that it wasn't showing the intent to find Najeeb. The High Court had also directed a forensic laboratory in Chandigarh to examine the mobile phones of the nine suspects. On May 11, 2018, the CBI had told the court that it found no evidence that there was any crime committed against Najeeb based on the findings of the lab. Three months later, the agency told the High Court that it had decided to file a closure report in the case since it had probed all angles and had still found nothing against the suspects. Of the nine phones sent to the lab in Chandigarh, two could not be analysed since they were not in a working condition. On April 2019, a Delhi court directed the CBI to give copies of all statements and documents related to the closure report to Najeeb's mother within two weeks. Naees had filed a protest petition against the CBI's closure report. The CBI's investigation involved questioning 26 persons, including JNU officials, staff, friends, and colleagues. It also involved examining mortuaries in 12 cities, along with scrutinising railway records for a year. As per the 8th status report filed by the central probe agency, Interpol was also roped in to help find Najeeb. The reward for finding him was also raised to Rs 10 lakh. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, who represented Naees in the High Court, had argued that the CBI wasted a lot of time in tracing Najeeb. 'The one thing they should have done is custodial interrogation of the accused persons. Najeeb was getting threats a day before he disappeared. The fact that they failed to do this shows a complete mockery of the system,' he told The Indian Express. In an order dated October 8, 2018, Delhi High Court Justice S Muralidhar had said: 'In the present case, however, this court did accept the plea of the petitioner at the first instance and directed the investigation to be undertaken by the CBI. This court is, however, for reasons discussed hereafter, not persuaded that the CBI is tardy and slow in the investigation or that it has not taken steps that are required to be taken in the matter.' Recently, the CBI told Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jyoti Maheshwari that they couldn't record the statement of the doctor at Safdarjung Hospital, where Najeeb was allegedly rushed after being injured in the scuffle, because no document pertaining to his visit existed. The CBI also alleged that he went back to the hostel without getting a medico-legal case report prepared. Meanwhile, in an order dated April 7, 2025, the court referred to Najeeb as 'deceased' instead of 'injured'. A few days later, they called it an 'inadvertent error' in a submission in court. Till date, no one knows where Najeeb is.
