Delhi’s trial closes the student’s extinction investigation

Nine years ago an Indian student disappeared into the air.

Najeeb ahmed studied biotechnology At the prestigious University of Jawharlal Neru (JNU) in Delhi, when he was missing in October 2016.

On the eve of his disappearance, the then 27-year-old guy, who lived in one of the university dormitories, participated in contractions with members of the right-wing Achilles Bharatiya Violi Parisad (ABVP). Students denied participation in its disappearance.

For many years, the Central Investigation Bureau (CBI) agency (CBI) has been trying to understand what could happen to Mr. Ahmed – Agency has taken the case with city police in 2017.

Now the court in Delhi finally closed the investigation after CBI said he had nominated all possible leaders in the case.

“As a part, the court honestly hopes that Nadzhbh Ahmed will be traced in the near future,” the court said in the ruling that was announced last month.

However, the family of Mr. Ahmed claimed that the investigation was not properly conducted and stated that he would appeal the decision in the Supreme Court.

“What message does he send that the main investigation of India was unable to find the missing student from one of India’s best universities?” Ahmed Fatima Napis’s mother told BBC Hindi.

“We will not refuse until we find our son.”

Born in the village in Uttar -Pradesh, Mr. Ahmed, the son of the carpenter, was the older of four. His family brought a lot of casualties to support his JNU education.

“After graduating from a bachelor’s degree, he was unwavering that he wanted to study at JNU,” said Ms. Nafis.

“I told him you could come but you won’t stay in the dorm. You’re too naive. But he didn’t listen to me.”

On the night of October 14, 2016, it was reported that Mr Ahmed fell into a fight with a group of students related to ABVP, who conducted a hostel election campaign. JNU is known for its bright and intensive student policy, with ideological groups that often face campus.

In his testimony, Mohd Kasim, his CBI room, said Mr. Ahmed was injured in an altercation and had to be taken to a state hospital, where he was allegedly refused treatment.

Doctors told him that he could not treat his wounds without an official complaint against the crime, which was handed over to the police, his roommate.

According to the court ruling, Mr. Ahmed decided not to file a complaint and returned to campus. The next day he went missing, leaving behind a phone, wallet and clothes in his dorm.

The CBI report states that Mr. Ahmed last used his phone and laptop around 10am a day when he disappeared. The head of the hostel told the agency that he saw Mr. Ahmed had entered the tuk-tuk in the morning and left the campus.

Ms. Napis, informed about Mr. Ahmed’s spouse over the phone, going to Delhi to see her son. On October 15, 2016, she arrived in the morning and, finding it missing, filed a complaint.

There were no progress within a few days. Protests broke out on a campus when students and activists accused the authorities of inaction.

In November 2016, Mrs. Napis filed a petition in Delhi Supreme Court, accusing the police of “slow, wrong and subjective” and called for a court governed.

A month later, Delhi police conducted two wide searches using Sniffer Dogs on a spreading JNU campus – but nothing was found again.

In May 2017, the court submitted an investigation into CBI.

A year later, the CBI told the court that it had exhausted all the possible presenters – and asked the bench to close the case.

The agency stated that it had considered more than 500 witnesses, collected information from taxi, buses, trains and flights, and searched hospitals and morgues, but found nothing.

One million rupees (11 600 dollars; £ 8 600) Reward for information Ahmed also failed to give results, the investigators claimed.

The case lasted for another two years, when in 2020, Ms Nafis returned to court, this time to challenge CBI’s findings.

She claimed that the agency was unable to properly check the students involved in the fight with her son. She said they had a “clear motive”, threatened and had to be arrested. CBI denied all the allegations stating that they had not left “not broken”, seeking Mr. Ahmed.

The agency stated that there was a phone location of nine students who participated in Mr Ahmed, but did not find the evidence that associate them with disappearance that night.

Having explained his decision to finally close the case, the court in Delhi said that CBI had investigated “all plausible avenues” carefully, but “no reliable information” could be obtained about the location of Mr Ahmed.

The judge rejected Ms. Nafis’s request, noting that while the witnesses confirmed verbal threats, there were no “direct or indirect” evidence that linked the disappearance of Mr. Ahmed with the fight against ABVP members.

“Such contractions and exchanges are not unprecedented” in the charged atmosphere of JNU, the order has been added.

The court, however, added that CBI could reopen the case when new information appears.

The order was a great blow for the family and the kindness of Mr. Ahmed.

Colin Gonzalves, who represented Ms. Nafis in the Supreme Court of Delhi in 2018, said he still doubted the investigation.

“Police regularly arrests people for minor crimes in India. Then shocking that none of the students was taken into custody for interrogation,” he said.

Ms Nafis claims that her son’s religion influenced the seriousness of the investigation.

“If the victim was a Hindu boy, would the police say the same?” she asked.

“They could demolish the suspects’ homes,” she said, citing increasing cases where the houses accused of crimes are bulldozed Indian authorities. BBC turned to CBI for comments.

However, the agency consistently claimed that they had conducted a probe impartially. In 2018, the Supreme Court of Delhi said he had not found evidence that CBI had investigated the case unfairly or “under political coercins”.

Mrs. Nafis says she’s not over. Every October 15, when her son disappeared, she joins the candle march in JNU in his memory. Nadezhda dimmed, but the expectation continues.

“Sometimes I wonder if I should put a sign for our house,” said Napis Ahmed, his father.

“Our house was renovated. What if it comes but can’t recognize it?”

Keep up the BBC News India Instagram. YouTube, Youter and Facebook is Facebook at Facebook..