Nearly nine years after Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Najeeb Ahmed vanished from his hostel under mysterious circumstances, a Delhi court on Monday brought the official investigation to a close. The court accepted the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) 2018 closure report, observing that the agency had pursued “all plausible leads” and noting the possibility that Najeeb may have voluntarily left the campus. Najeeb, a first-year MSc student at JNU, disappeared on October 15, 2016, a day after an altercation in the Mahi-Mandavi hostel involving students. (HT Archive)

While disposing of the protest petition filed by Najeeb’s mother, Fatima Nafees, additional chief judicial magistrate (ACJM) Jyoti Maheshwari noted: “This court is of the considered opinion that CBI has investigated all plausible avenues available in the present case.”

The decision, which comes nearly a decade after Najeeb’s disappearance in October 2016, marks the end of a case that had gripped national attention, sparked protests across campuses, and prompted a protracted legal battle by Najeeb’s mother, Fatima Nafees.

Fatima, who had long contested CBI’s findings, had alleged lapses in the investigation and sought further inquiry. However, her protest petition, pending since August 2020, was rejected by the ACJM.

In its ruling, the court emphasised that there was no incriminating evidence against any individual suggesting that Najeeb was forcibly disappeared. Instead, it pointed to the possibility of a voluntary departure. It further stated that CBI had examined every conceivable aspect of the case, but was unable to trace Najeeb.

“CBI has undertaken a holistic investigation and exhausted all options. Further, the grounds raised by the protest petitioner, in alleging lapses in the investigation by CBI, have been examined at length and stand rejected,” the order underlined.

Though the official probe has now ended, the court left open the door for future developments. It granted CBI the liberty to reopen the investigation if credible information surfaces about Najeeb’s whereabouts and asked the agency to notify the court accordingly.

Recognising the prolonged anguish of the family, the ACJM added: “This court is cognisant of the plight of an anxious mother who has been on a quest to find out about her missing son since 2016, but the investigating agency … cannot be faulted for the investigation carried out.”

Underscoring the limitations of investigative processes, the court observed that while truth remains the ultimate goal of every criminal investigation, there are cases where, despite the best efforts of law enforcement agencies, that truth remains elusive.

The order concluded with a hope that Najeeb would be found someday: “It is earnestly hoped that Najeeb Ahmed shall be traced soon.” It further acknowledged that while the proceedings may have ended with a closure report, a true closure for Fatima and Najeeb’s loved ones still remains elusive.

Najeeb, a first-year MSc student at JNU, disappeared on October 15, 2016, a day after an altercation in the Mahi-Mandavi hostel involving students allegedly affiliated with the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The JNU Students’ Union president at the time, Mohit Pandey, filed a complaint naming nine ABVP-linked students, alleging they had threatened Najeeb.

Initially, the Delhi Police registered a kidnapping case under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code but failed to make headway. The investigation passed through the hands of a special investigation team and the crime branch before being transferred to CBI in May 2017 following a Delhi High Court directive on Fatima’s petition. Despite searching hospitals, railway stations, and morgues, and reviewing CCTV footage, the agencies found no conclusive leads.

In October 2018, CBI submitted a closure report stating there was no evidence of abduction or foul play. Fatima filed a protest petition, alleging serious lapses in the investigation and urging further inquiry. But over the next four years, the case saw multiple adjournments and changes in presiding judges—10 in total—before Monday’s ruling finally addressed her petition.

In its 29-page order, the court dismissed all the points raised by Fatima. Among her primary allegations was that the CBI had failed to properly investigate the role of the nine ABVP-affiliated students. She claimed the scuffle on campus provided a motive for them to harm Najeeb. The court, however, found no evidence to support this, noting that minor altercations were not unusual on campus and that there was no scuffle involving Najeeb on the day he disappeared.

Another key argument raised by Fatima was that CBI had placed undue emphasis on Najeeb’s mental health to support a theory of voluntary disappearance, rather than pursuing leads that could point to coercion or violence. To this, the court cited medical records showing that Najeeb had received treatment from three doctors in Bareilly, Badaun, and Delhi for symptoms of recurrent depression and anxiety.

The court held that there was “sufficient material” to suggest that Najeeb had attempted to avoid returning to his hostel on several occasions, which it said kept open the possibility of a voluntary exit.

Fatima also flagged that a doctor at Safdarjung Hospital, who allegedly treated Najeeb the night before his disappearance, had not been questioned by the agency. But the court dismissed this as inconsequential, saying the injuries were minor and Najeeb had left the hospital without receiving treatment.

Reacting to the ruling, Fatima told Hindustan Times: “I got to know that my protest plea has been rejected. I still don’t know the full contents of the order yet, so I will go through it and discuss the next course of action with my lawyer.”