Latest news with #NajeebAhmed
Saudi Gazette
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Saudi Gazette
A mother's heartbreak: The unresolved mystery of missing Indian student
DELHI — Nine years ago, an Indian student vanished into thin air. Najeeb Ahmed was studying biotechnology at the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Delhi, when he mysteriously went missing in October 2016. The night before his disappearance, the then 27-year-old who lived in one of the university's residential hostels was involved in a scuffle with members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), a right-wing student group. The students have denied any involvement in his disappearance. For years, India's crime-fighting agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), has been trying to figure what may have happened to Ahmed — the agency took over the case from city police in 2017. Now a court in Delhi has finally shut the investigation after the CBI said it had exhuasted all possible leads in the case. "As a parting note, the court earnestly hopes that Najeeb Ahmed shall be traced soon," the court said in the order, which was announced last family, however, have alleged the inquiry was not conducted in a proper manner and said they would appeal the decision in a higher court."What message does it send, that India's premier investigating agency has not been able to find a missing student from one of India's best universities?" Ahmed's mother Fatima Nafees told BBC Hindi."We will not give up until we find our son."Born in a village in Uttar Pradesh, Ahmed, the son of a carpenter, was the eldest of four. His family made many sacrifices to support his JNU education."After completing his undergraduate degree, he was adamant that he wanted to study at JNU," Ms Nafees said."I told him you can take admission, but you won't stay in the hostel. You are too naive. But he didn't listen to me."On the night of 14 October, 2016, Ahmed reportedly got into a scuffle with a group of students affiliated to ABVP who were campaigning for hostel elections. JNU is known for its vibrant and intense student politics, with ideological groups often clashing over campus his testimonies to the CBI, his roommate Mohd Qasim said that Ahmed got injured in the altercation and had to be taken to a public hospital, where he was allegedly refused doctors told him they could not treat his wounds without a formal crime complaint having been made to the police, his roommate to the court order, Ahmed chose not to file a complaint and returned to campus. He went missing the next day, leaving behind his phone, wallet, and clothes in his hostel room.A CBI report says Ahmed last used his phone and laptop around 10am the day he disappeared. A hostel warden told the agency that he saw Ahmed getting into a tuk-tuk in the morning and leaving Nafees, who had been informed of the scuffle over phone by Ahmed's roommate, was on her way to Delhi to see her son. She arrived in the morning and upon finding him missing, filed a missing persons complaint on 15 October days, there was no progress. Protests erupted on campus as students and activists accused authorities of November 2016, Ms Nafees filed a petition in the Delhi High Court, accusing the police of being "slow, misdirected and subjective" and called for a court-monitored probe.A month later, Delhi Police conducted two extensive searches using sniffer dogs across JNU's sprawling campus — but again, nothing was May 2017, the court handed over the investigation to the CBI.A year later, the CBI told the court it had exhausted all possible leads — and asked the bench to close the agency said it had examined more than 500 witnesses, collected information from taxi, bus, train and flight operators, and searched hospitals and morgues, but had found nothing.A one million rupees [$11,600; £8,600] reward for information about Ahmed also failed to yield results, investigators case dragged on for two more years, when in 2020, Ms Nafees returned to court, this time to challenge the CBI's alleged the agency failed to properly probe the students involved in the scuffle with her son. She said they had a "clear motive", had threatened him, and should have been arrested. The CBI denied all allegations saying they had left "no stone unturned" in looking for agency said it had tracked the phone locations of the nine students involved in the fight with Ahmed that night, but found no evidence linking them to his its decision to finally shut the case, a court in Delhi said that the CBI has investigated "all plausible avenues" thoroughly but "no credible information" could be received about Ahmed's judge dismissed Ms Nafees' plea, noting that while witnesses confirmed verbal threats, there was no "direct or circumstantial" evidence linking Ahmed's disappearance to the fight with ABVP members."Such scuffles and exchanges are not unheard of" in the charged atmosphere of JNU, the order court, however, added that the CBI could reopen the case if new information comes to order has been a huge blow for Ahmed's family and Gonsalves, who represented Ms Nafees in the Delhi High Court in 2018, said he still questioned the investigation."The police routinely arrest people for minor crimes in India. It's shocking then, that none of the students were taken into custody for questioning," he Nafees alleges that her son's religion had affected the seriousness of the investigation."If the victim had been a Hindu boy, would the police have responded the same way?" she asked."They would have demolished the houses of those suspected," she alleged, referring to the rising instances where homes of individuals accused of crimes are bulldozed by Indian authorities. The BBC has reached out to the CBI for the agency has consistently maintained that they have carried out the probe impartially. In 2018, the Delhi High Court had said that they had found no evidence that CBI investigated the case unfairly or "under political compulsions".Ms Nafees says she's not done fighting. Every 15 October, the day her son vanished, she joins a candle march at JNU in his memory. The hope has dimmed, but the wait continues."Sometimes I wonder if I should put a nameplate outside our house," said Nafees Ahmed, his father."Our house has been renovated. What if he comes, but can't recognise it?" — BBC
BBC News
19 hours ago
- Politics
- BBC News
Najeeb Ahmed: Delhi court closes investigation into JNU student's disappearance
Nine years ago, an Indian student vanished into thin air. Najeeb Ahmed was studying biotechnology at the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Delhi, when he mysteriously went missing in October night before his disappearance, the then 27-year-old who lived in one of the university's residential hostels was involved in a scuffle with members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), a right-wing student group. The students have denied any involvement in his disappearance. For years, India's crime-fighting agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), has been trying to figure what may have happened to Mr Ahmed - the agency took over the case from city police in 2017. Now a court in Delhi has finally shut the investigation after the CBI said it had exhuasted all possible leads in the case. "As a parting note, the court earnestly hopes that Najeeb Ahmed shall be traced soon," the court said in the order, which was announced last month. Mr Ahmed's family, however, have alleged the inquiry was not conducted in a proper manner and said they would appeal the decision in a higher court. "What message does it send, that India's premier investigating agency has not been able to find a missing student from one of India's best universities?" Mr Ahmed's mother Fatima Nafees told BBC Hindi. "We will not give up until we find our son."Born in a village in Uttar Pradesh, Mr Ahmed, the son of a carpenter, was the eldest of four. His family made many sacrifices to support his JNU education."After completing his undergraduate degree, he was adamant that he wanted to study at JNU," Ms Nafees said. "I told him you can take admission, but you won't stay in the hostel. You are too naive. But he didn't listen to me." On the night of 14 October, 2016, Mr Ahmed reportedly got into a scuffle with a group of students affiliated to ABVP who were campaigning for hostel elections. JNU is known for its vibrant and intense student politics, with ideological groups often clashing over campus his testimonies to the CBI, his roommate Mohd Qasim said that Mr Ahmed got injured in the altercation and had to be taken to a public hospital, where he was allegedly refused treatment. The doctors told him they could not treat his wounds without a formal crime complaint having been made to the police, his roommate to the court order, Mr Ahmed chose not to file a complaint and returned to campus. He went missing the next day, leaving behind his phone, wallet, and clothes in his hostel room.A CBI report says Mr Ahmed last used his phone and laptop around 10am the day he disappeared. A hostel warden told the agency that he saw Mr Ahmed getting into a tuk-tuk in the morning and leaving campus. Ms Nafees, who had been informed of the scuffle over phone by Mr Ahmed's roommate, was on her way to Delhi to see her son. She arrived in the morning and upon finding him missing, filed a missing persons complaint on 15 October 2016. For days, there was no progress. Protests erupted on campus as students and activists accused authorities of November 2016, Ms Nafees filed a petition in the Delhi High Court, accusing the police of being "slow, misdirected and subjective" and called for a court-monitored probe.A month later, Delhi Police conducted two extensive searches using sniffer dogs across JNU's sprawling campus - but again, nothing was found. In May 2017, the court handed over the investigation to the CBI. A year later, the CBI told the court it had exhausted all possible leads - and asked the bench to close the case. The agency said it had examined more than 500 witnesses, collected information from taxi, bus, train and flight operators, and searched hospitals and morgues, but had found nothing.A one million rupees [$11,600; £8,600] reward for information about Mr Ahmed also failed to yield results, investigators argued. The case dragged on for two more years, when in 2020, Ms Nafees returned to court, this time to challenge the CBI's conclusions. She alleged the agency failed to properly probe the students involved in the scuffle with her son. She said they had a "clear motive", had threatened him, and should have been arrested. The CBI denied all allegations saying they had left "no stone unturned" in looking for Mr agency said it had tracked the phone locations of the nine students involved in the fight with Mr Ahmed that night, but found no evidence linking them to his disappearance. Explaining its decision to finally shut the case, a court in Delhi said that the CBI has investigated "all plausible avenues" thoroughly but "no credible information" could be received about Mr Ahmed's judge dismissed Ms Nafees' plea, noting that while witnesses confirmed verbal threats, there was no "direct or circumstantial" evidence linking Mr Ahmed's disappearance to the fight with ABVP members."Such scuffles and exchanges are not unheard of" in the charged atmosphere of JNU, the order court, however, added that the CBI could reopen the case if new information comes to order has been a huge blow for Mr Ahmed's family and well-wishers. Colin Gonsalves, who represented Ms Nafees in the Delhi High Court in 2018, said he still questioned the investigation. "The police routinely arrest people for minor crimes in India. It's shocking then, that none of the students were taken into custody for questioning," he said. Ms Nafees alleges that her son's religion had affected the seriousness of the investigation."If the victim had been a Hindu boy, would the police have responded the same way?" she asked. "They would have demolished the houses of those suspected," she alleged, referring to the rising instances where homes of individuals accused of crimes are bulldozed by Indian authorities. The BBC has reached out to the CBI for comment. However, the agency has consistently maintained that they have carried out the probe impartially. In 2018, the Delhi High Court had said that they had found no evidence that CBI investigated the case unfairly or "under political compulsions". Ms Nafees says she's not done fighting. Every 15 October, the day her son vanished, she joins a candle march at JNU in his memory. The hope has dimmed, but the wait continues."Sometimes I wonder if I should put a nameplate outside our house," said Nafees Ahmed, his father. "Our house has been renovated. What if he comes, but can't recognise it?"Follow BBC News India on Instagram, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.
The Wire
04-07-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
Where Is Najeeb? Why Don't You Care?
Where is Najeeb Ahmed? When a student goes missing; you don't care. You don't set up a search party, you don't comment, you don't cry about it with your 56-inch wide chest and 5,600-word long speeches, you don't write a tweet, you don't discuss it in your big board rooms with people in power, you let people think that Najeeb Ahmed is a nobody; as if he never existed, as if he should never exist at all in the order of affairs. You don't call out the students who think like you, who beat students who don't think like you – with sticks and bottles and everything blunt and sharp. You don't say anything when a library is attacked. When book shelves fall on the heads of the students. When their head bleeds from the attacks on their minds which still await to be nourished and put to good use for the country; they might be preparing for their UPSC exams but now they cannot see clearly and have bruises all over their body and mind. You don't care when your police hit the students with lathis leaving them paralysed, blind in one eye and prone to asthma and respiratory illnesses. You don't care when they are dragged into police cars and shoved into buses as they can't breathe to save the trees which they are fighting for, to have a breathable future. You don't care when they fire burning gas at young bodies, crippling them for weeks until they never walk again and get out of the house to protest, to sit on the doors of justice asking to release their fellow comrades. You do this because you know you can do this; to weaken them; you do this to break their soul by breaking their bodies, one body at a time – one student at a time; one teacher at a time by raiding their houses, compromising their computers, by destroying their bookshelves and confiscating them as evidence. Evidence of their intellectual rigour, their passion, their love for humanity, their literature and their music. You take it all and use it against them. You don't care when they shoot writers, journalists and arrest English teachers who die in your jail cells waiting to meet their mothers at their funerals. We know you don't care and you never will. But somebody has to care – so that it is not their student or friend who disappears one day. Or they themselves. Where is Najeeb Ahmed? Sarah Talat teaches English at Azim Premji University, Bangalore. The ideas in her writing only reflect her own and not those of the University.
News18
01-07-2025
- News18
CBI Files Closure Report In Najeeb Ahmed Case: 10 Years On, JNU Student's Disappearance Still A MysteryFive hundred police personnel, sniffer dogs, mounted police, photographers and videographers, 560 witness examinations, analysis of more than 200 documents, testimonies from 116 auto-rickshaw drivers and a cash reward of Rs 10 lakh – despite all of this, the disappearance of JNU student Najeeb Ahmed in October 2016 remains a mystery. A city court on Monday accepted the CBI's closure report filed in the case of Najeeb Ahmed's disappearance. While accepting the report, the court said it is of the opinion that the premier central agency investigated all plausible avenues available and the present closure report stands accepted. "The court also earnestly hopes that Najeeb Ahmed shall be traced soon. This court expresses its regret that while the proceedings in the present case end with this closure report, a closure for Najeeb's mother and other loved ones still eludes us. The CBI is at liberty to reopen the investigation on receipt of any credible information… and shall intimate the court," the court observed. Delhi Police initially handled the investigation, but it was later transferred to the CBI after Najeeb's mother filed a habeas corpus petition in the Delhi High Court expressing dissatisfaction with the probe. In October 2018, the CBI closed its investigation into the case. During the investigation it had also appeared that Najeeb had an altercation with some of his hostel mates on the intervening night of October 14 and 15, 2016. Noting that the court, while accepting the closure report, said while the allegations regarding physical assault and verbal threats against Najeeb on the night of October 14, 2016, are supported by witness testimonies, those events cannot be linked to his subsequent disappearance. 'The CBI has, through the evidence collected (the genuineness of which has not been disputed), satisfactorily explained the whereabouts of the suspects and ruled out their involvement. The mere existence of a motive or hostility, sans any corroborative material, cannot be a substitute for proof,' the court said. Najeeb was an MSc Biotechnology student at JNU and was allotted room number 106 in Mahi-Mandvi hostel of the university. Police found during its investigation that elections of the Mahi-Mandvi hostel were scheduled to take place on October 17, two days before which Najeeb went missing. WHAT HAPPENED? It surfaced that students, namely, Vikrant Kumar, Sunil Pratap Singh and Ankit Kumar Roy, contesting for the post of mess secretary and hostel committee member, were campaigning for the same, on the night of October 14, 2016. They went to visit room number 106 of the hostel, which was opened by Najeeb, and they requested him to cast his vote in their favour. As per the investigation, Najeeb got angry about this, abused, and slapped Vikrant Kumar (one of the campaigning students) twice and questioned him about the red thread (kalava) on his hand. Najeeb also pushed Sunil Pratap Singh, as he tried to intervene. At this point, Ankit Roy went to call the security guard from the ground floor of the hostel. As the situation intensified, the hostel security guard, Rajesh Kumar Jat called and requested the supervisor and hostel wardens. An emergency meeting was called in the warden's office on the same night and, as per the statements of witnesses, Najeeb orally admitted that he had slapped Vikrant without any provocation and also pleaded 'sorry'. Both Vikrant and Najeeb were asked to submit in writing about the incident and Vikrant gave a complaint, mentioning that Najeeb had slapped him, while Najeeb wrote a one line submission: ‘I don't remember.' After the meeting, Najeeb complained of back pain and was taken to Safdarjung Hospital in the JNU ambulance. Najeeb's mother Fatima Nafees, who had been informed about the incident, started for Delhi from Badaun in Uttar Pradesh around 3.30 am along with her younger son, Mujeeb Ahmed. She last spoke to Najeeb around 11.30 am from Anand Vihar, but when she reached the hostel around 1.00 pm, her son was missing and his mobile phone as well as laptop were in the hostel room. According to the witnesses, Najeeb was last seen boarding an auto-rickshaw and was not carrying any luggage. He was wearing the same clothes as the night before. WHO ARE THE SUSPECTS? In this case, there were nine prime suspects – mostly Najeeb's hostel mates with whom he got into a fight. The court said it has perused the digital foot-printing report of the call records and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory reports. It has been revealed, the main accused remained there, from the morning of October 15, 2016 till lunch when the match got over. It further noted that another one of the suspects, went to the library along with Deepak on October 15 at around 10.30 am. Moreover, another suspect – Ankit Kumar Roy – had gone to attend the School of Language on the morning of Octoner in 15 and returned to the hostel only at 1.30 pm, the court noted. THE INVESTIGATION It was on the night of October 15, 2016 when the Vasant Kunj police station (North) in South Delhi, received Najeeb Ahmed's missing complaint which was converted into FIR the next day. Initially, wireless messages were sent out to all units concerned, police stations, districts, and missing person's details were uploaded on Zonal Integrated Police Net (ZIPNET). As the investigation proceeded, police examined staff, students and classmates of Najeeb. Multiple police teams conducted combing operations on the JNU campus as well as in Sanjay Van, behind JNU, twice, with private security personnel from JNU. At the JNU campus, the lands, buildings, water tanks and forest area were also thoroughly searched on December 19 and 20, 2016, in a massive search operation led by a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) consisting about 560 police officials, assisted by sniffer dogs, mounted police, photographers and videographers. At least 560 witnesses, including Ahmed's family members, classmates, hostel administration among doctors treating Najeeb were examined, security guards and students at JNU, members of the proctorial enquiry committee, and the officials of Delhi Police involved in search of the JNU premises and other neighbouring areas. The probe agency also recorded testimonies of 116 auto-rickshaw drivers plying in and around JNU campus and 61 of them operating around Jamia Millia University. Indian Railways said information was sought from taxi operators, cab service providers, Indian Railways, regarding the possibility of any travel, which could have been undertaken by Najeeb. It was also checked if he had left the city by air. Scrutiny of his bank accounts and information sought from the branches of the banks to identify whether any transaction had taken place in his bank account, ever since his disappearance, were also undertaken. In fact, a Yellow Notice was also issued through Interpol, in order to trace Najeeb and the same was published in all the member-countries of Interpol. Moreover, a reward of Rs 10,00,000 was also announced for the public.
CBI Files Closure Report In Najeeb Ahmed Case: 10 Years On, JNU Student's Disappearance Still A MysteryFive hundred police personnel, sniffer dogs, mounted police, photographers and videographers, 560 witness examinations, analysis of more than 200 documents, testimonies from 116 auto-rickshaw drivers and a cash reward of Rs 10 lakh – despite all of this, the disappearance of JNU student Najeeb Ahmed in October 2016 remains a mystery. A city court on Monday accepted the CBI's closure report filed in the case of Najeeb Ahmed's disappearance. While accepting the report, the court said it is of the opinion that the premier central agency investigated all plausible avenues available and the present closure report stands accepted. "The court also earnestly hopes that Najeeb Ahmed shall be traced soon. This court expresses its regret that while the proceedings in the present case end with this closure report, a closure for Najeeb's mother and other loved ones still eludes us. The CBI is at liberty to reopen the investigation on receipt of any credible information… and shall intimate the court," the court observed. Delhi Police initially handled the investigation, but it was later transferred to the CBI after Najeeb's mother filed a habeas corpus petition in the Delhi High Court expressing dissatisfaction with the probe. In October 2018, the CBI closed its investigation into the case. During the investigation it had also appeared that Najeeb had an altercation with some of his hostel mates on the intervening night of October 14 and 15, 2016. Noting that the court, while accepting the closure report, said while the allegations regarding physical assault and verbal threats against Najeeb on the night of October 14, 2016, are supported by witness testimonies, those events cannot be linked to his subsequent disappearance. 'The CBI has, through the evidence collected (the genuineness of which has not been disputed), satisfactorily explained the whereabouts of the suspects and ruled out their involvement. The mere existence of a motive or hostility, sans any corroborative material, cannot be a substitute for proof,' the court said. Najeeb was an MSc Biotechnology student at JNU and was allotted room number 106 in Mahi-Mandvi hostel of the university. Police found during its investigation that elections of the Mahi-Mandvi hostel were scheduled to take place on October 17, two days before which Najeeb went missing. WHAT HAPPENED? It surfaced that students, namely, Vikrant Kumar, Sunil Pratap Singh and Ankit Kumar Roy, contesting for the post of mess secretary and hostel committee member, were campaigning for the same, on the night of October 14, 2016. They went to visit room number 106 of the hostel, which was opened by Najeeb, and they requested him to cast his vote in their favour. As per the investigation, Najeeb got angry about this, abused, and slapped Vikrant Kumar (one of the campaigning students) twice and questioned him about the red thread (kalava) on his hand. Najeeb also pushed Sunil Pratap Singh, as he tried to intervene. At this point, Ankit Roy went to call the security guard from the ground floor of the hostel. As the situation intensified, the hostel security guard, Rajesh Kumar Jat called and requested the supervisor and hostel wardens. An emergency meeting was called in the warden's office on the same night and, as per the statements of witnesses, Najeeb orally admitted that he had slapped Vikrant without any provocation and also pleaded 'sorry'. Both Vikrant and Najeeb were asked to submit in writing about the incident and Vikrant gave a complaint, mentioning that Najeeb had slapped him, while Najeeb wrote a one line submission: 'I don't remember.' After the meeting, Najeeb complained of back pain and was taken to Safdarjung Hospital in the JNU ambulance. Najeeb's mother Fatima Nafees, who had been informed about the incident, started for Delhi from Badaun in Uttar Pradesh around 3.30 am along with her younger son, Mujeeb Ahmed. She last spoke to Najeeb around 11.30 am from Anand Vihar, but when she reached the hostel around 1.00 pm, her son was missing and his mobile phone as well as laptop were in the hostel room. According to the witnesses, Najeeb was last seen boarding an auto-rickshaw and was not carrying any luggage. He was wearing the same clothes as the night before. WHO ARE THE SUSPECTS? In this case, there were nine prime suspects – mostly Najeeb's hostel mates with whom he got into a fight. The court said it has perused the digital foot-printing report of the call records and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory reports. It has been revealed, the main accused remained there, from the morning of October 15, 2016 till lunch when the match got over. It further noted that another one of the suspects, went to the library along with Deepak on October 15 at around 10.30 am. Moreover, another suspect – Ankit Kumar Roy – had gone to attend the School of Language on the morning of Octoner in 15 and returned to the hostel only at 1.30 pm, the court noted. THE INVESTIGATION It was on the night of October 15, 2016 when the Vasant Kunj police station (North) in South Delhi, received Najeeb Ahmed's missing complaint which was converted into FIR the next day. Initially, wireless messages were sent out to all units concerned, police stations, districts, and missing person's details were uploaded on Zonal Integrated Police Net (ZIPNET). As the investigation proceeded, police examined staff, students and classmates of Najeeb. Multiple police teams conducted combing operations on the JNU campus as well as in Sanjay Van, behind JNU, twice, with private security personnel from JNU. At the JNU campus, the lands, buildings, water tanks and forest area were also thoroughly searched on December 19 and 20, 2016, in a massive search operation led by a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) consisting about 560 police officials, assisted by sniffer dogs, mounted police, photographers and videographers. At least 560 witnesses, including Ahmed's family members, classmates, hostel administration among doctors treating Najeeb were examined, security guards and students at JNU, members of the proctorial enquiry committee, and the officials of Delhi Police involved in search of the JNU premises and other neighbouring areas. The probe agency also recorded testimonies of 116 auto-rickshaw drivers plying in and around JNU campus and 61 of them operating around Jamia Millia University. Indian Railways said information was sought from taxi operators, cab service providers, Indian Railways, regarding the possibility of any travel, which could have been undertaken by Najeeb. It was also checked if he had left the city by air. Scrutiny of his bank accounts and information sought from the branches of the banks to identify whether any transaction had taken place in his bank account, ever since his disappearance, were also undertaken. In fact, a Yellow Notice was also issued through Interpol, in order to trace Najeeb and the same was published in all the member-countries of Interpol. Moreover, a reward of Rs 10,00,000 was also announced for the public.
The Print
30-06-2025
- Politics
- The Print
8 years after JNU student Najeeb Ahmed disappeared, Delhi court accepts CBI's closure report
On Monday, the Rouse Avenue court finally accepted the report the agency filed in October 2018, marking the closure of the eight-year-old case. Ahmed, a first-year MSc student in bio-technology, went missing on 15 October 2016 from his hostel. He had allegedly been in a scuffle with students linked to Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) the previous night. New Delhi: A Delhi court Monday accepted a closure report from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a case linked to the 2016 disappearance of Jawaharlal Nehru University student Najeeb Ahmed. In the court order, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jyoti Maheshwari noted that the CBI had covered all 'conceivable aspects which could have been investigated upon' regarding Ahmed's whereabouts. 'An analysis of the above discussion shows that CBI has undertaken a holistic investigation and exhausted all options,' the order said. The judge further rejected the allegations of lapses by the CBI raised by Ahmed's mother, Fatima Nafees. However, the judge allowed the CBI to reopen the case in case it receives any credible information related to Ahmed's whereabouts. 'This Court is cognisant of the plight of an anxious mother (the protest petitioner), who has been on a quest to find out about her missing son since 2016, but the investigating agency in the present case i.e. CBI cannot be faulted for the investigation carried out,' the order said. 'The quest for truth is the foundation of every criminal investigation, yet there are cases where the investigation conducted cannot achieve its logical conclusion, despite the best efforts of the investigating machinery.' On 15 October 2016, Ahmed's mother approached the Vasant Kunj Police station complaining that her son was missing from his room, 106, in Mahi-Mandavi hostel at the JNU campus in Delhi. She found her son's absence suspicious since he was aware that she was coming to visit. Ahmed had taken admission in JNU in August 2016 and had returned after a vacation only two days before going missing. He was 27 at the time. By 16 October, the Delhi Police conceded that it had not found any evidence related to his whereabouts. With no information emerging about her son's whereabouts even months after his disappearance, Fatima approached the Delhi High Court to have the case transferred to the CBI. On 2 June 2017, the agency registered an FIR under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that deals with abductions and kidnappings. A year later, after examining witnesses and recording their statements, including those of the JNU wardens and Ahmed's roommate, the CBI approached the court to file a closure report. The Delhi High Court, which was monitoring its progress, allowed the agency to file the report in October 2018. (Edited by Sanya Mathur) Also Read: Inside story of the hunt for Najeeb Ahmed, the JNU student who disappeared into thin air
