Nine years ago, an Indian student’s disappearance sparked a still-unresolved mystery.
Najeeb Ahmed, then a biotechnology student at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Delhi, vanished in October 2016 under perplexing circumstances.
The evening preceding his disappearance, the 27-year-old, residing in a university hostel, was reportedly involved in an altercation with members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), a right-wing student organization. The ABVP has denied any involvement in Ahmed’s disappearance.
For years, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India’s premier crime-fighting agency, has investigated the case, taking over from city police in 2017, to determine the circumstances surrounding Mr. Ahmed’s vanishing.
Recently, a Delhi court closed the investigation after the CBI stated it had exhausted all potential leads.
“As a parting note, the court earnestly hopes that Najeeb Ahmed shall be traced soon,” the court noted in its order last month.
Mr. Ahmed’s family, however, has contested the inquiry’s integrity and intends to 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 eldest of four and son of a carpenter, received substantial family support for his JNU education.
“After completing his undergraduate degree, he was adamant that he wanted to study at JNU,” Ms. Nafees stated.
“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 October 14, 2016, Mr. Ahmed was allegedly involved in an altercation with students affiliated with ABVP during hostel election campaigns. JNU is known for its active student politics, with ideological groups frequently clashing over campus issues.
In his testimonies to the CBI, Mr. Ahmed’s roommate, Mohd Qasim, stated that Mr. Ahmed sustained injuries in the altercation and was taken to a public hospital, where he was allegedly denied treatment.
His roommate alleged that doctors stated they could not treat his wounds without a formal police complaint.
According to the court order, Mr. Ahmed chose not to file a complaint and returned to campus. He disappeared the next day, leaving behind his phone, wallet, and clothes in his hostel room.
A CBI report indicates that Mr. Ahmed last used his phone and laptop around 10 a.m. on the day of his disappearance. A hostel warden reported seeing Mr. Ahmed leaving campus in a tuk-tuk that morning.
Ms. Nafees, informed of the altercation by Mr. Ahmed’s roommate, was en route to Delhi to see her son. Upon arrival and discovering his disappearance, she filed a missing persons complaint on October 15, 2016.
Initial investigations yielded no progress, and protests erupted on campus, with students and activists accusing authorities of inaction.
In November 2016, Ms. Nafees filed a petition in the Delhi High Court, criticizing the police for being “slow, misdirected and subjective” and requesting a court-monitored probe.
The following month, Delhi Police conducted extensive searches using sniffer dogs across JNU’s campus, but found no leads.
In May 2017, the court transferred the investigation to the CBI.
A year later, the CBI informed the court that it had exhausted all possible leads and requested closure of the case.
The agency reported examining over 500 witnesses, gathering information from transportation services, and searching hospitals and morgues, all without success.
A one million rupees [$11,600; £8,600] reward for information about Mr. Ahmed also failed to produce results, investigators contended.
In 2020, Ms. Nafees returned to court, challenging the CBI’s conclusions.
She alleged the agency failed to properly investigate the students involved in the altercation, asserting they had a “clear motive,” had threatened him, and should have been arrested. The CBI refuted these allegations, stating they had left “no stone unturned” in their search for Mr. Ahmed.
The agency stated it had tracked the phone locations of the nine students involved in the fight but found no evidence linking them to his disappearance.
Explaining its decision to close the case, the Delhi court stated that the CBI had thoroughly investigated “all plausible avenues” but received “no credible information” regarding Mr. Ahmed’s whereabouts.
The 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 added.
The court noted, however, that the CBI could reopen the case if new information surfaces.
The order has been a significant setback for Mr. Ahmed’s family and supporters.
Colin Gonsalves, who represented Ms. Nafees in the Delhi High Court in 2018, continues to question 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 stated.
Ms. Nafees suggests that her son’s religion 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 the impartiality of its probe. In 2018, the Delhi High Court stated it found no evidence that CBI investigated the case unfairly or “under political compulsions.”
Ms. Nafees affirms she will continue her fight. Every October 15th, the anniversary of her son’s disappearance, she participates in a candle march at JNU in his memory. The hope has dwindled, but the wait persists.
“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.
Zak Crawley reaches 50 off 73 balls to move England to 109-0 on day two of the fourth Test, leaving them 249 runs behind India’s first innings score of 358 at Old Trafford.
The free trade deal is expected to cut tariffs on goods and increase market access for both countries.
An agreement, first announced in May, to slash tariffs and boost trade has been signed by the UK and Indian prime ministers.
Ben Stokes leads England’s attack against India as he finishes with figures of 5-72 in their first innings, with the tourists bowled out for 358 on day two of the fourth Test at Old Trafford.
India wicketkeeper Rishabh Pant returned to bat despite his foot injury on day two of the fourth Test against England but will not keep wicket for the rest of the match.