The Delhi High Court has permitted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a closure report in the case concerning the disappearance of JNU student Najeeb Ahmed nearly two years ago.

The verdict was issued on a petition filed by Fatima Nafees, Ahmed’s mother. During the last hearing, CBI had informed the court that it had not found any evidence of Ahmed being assaulted a day before he went missing. Accepting the contention, the High Court has now ruled that Fatima can raise her grievances before the trial court, where the closure report is being filed.

According to Fatima’s petition, 27 year old Ahmed was a student of MSc. Biotechnology (1st Year) Jawaharlal Nehru University. He called her at around 2:30 am in the morning of October 15, 2016 and informed her that something had happened to him.

Worried, Fatima left for Delhi with her second son Mujeeb. Upon reaching Delhi, she called her son again and told him she will be coming to his hostel room, Najeeb confirmed that he was still at his hostel. However, after reaching her hostel room, Fatima discovered that her son had gone missing.

Fatima then found out from students that Najeeb was beaten up by members of the Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) on October 14. After Najeeb’s disappearance, an FIR was registered on October 16, but there was no mention of the assault on Najeeb.

The petition had now submitted that members of ABVP assaulted Najeeb, and since ABVP is affiliated to the RSS, it is closely connected with the ruling party, BJP as well. It had therefore reasoned that the High Court should appoint a Special Investigation Team consisting of members with “proven integrity from outside Delhi” to take over the investigation from the Delhi Police crime branch.

Thereafter, the CBI had taken over the probe from the Delhi Police in May 16 last year, and had later informed it that it has decided to file a closure report in the case as its investigation did not reveal any offence having been committed against Ahmed.

To this, Fatima had asserted that it was a “political case” and that the “CBI has succumbed to the pressure of its masters”.

Having heard both the sides, a Bench comprising Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice Vinod Goel had then, on September 4, reserved its verdict