During the last hearing, the CBI had informed the court that it had not found any evidence with regard to Ahmad’s disappearance or of him being assaulted a day before he went missing. The Delhi High Court Monday turned down a plea by missing JNU student Najeeb Ahmad’s mother to constitute a Special Investigation Team to probe his disappearance, saying it does not agree that the “CBI has not acted fairly or that it has been under any influence or political compulsions in its decision to file a closure report”. Najeeb has been missing for almost two years. A bench of Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Vinod Goel, however, made it clear that it would not like to say anything on the CBI’s stand “because it will be for the (trial) court concerned to decide whether on the material placed before it, the CBI closure report should be accepted or not”. “That will be a decision to be taken independently by the court concerned, uninfluenced by what this court (HC) may have observed thus far in these proceedings. Further, in coming to any conclusion in that matter, the court concerned will certainly take into consideration the stand and contentions of the petitioner (Ahmad’s mother), if any,” the HC said. The HC verdict was issued on a petition filed by Fatima Nafees, Ahmad’s mother. During the last hearing, the CBI had informed the court that it had not found any evidence with regard to Ahmad’s disappearance or of him being assaulted a day before he went missing. Accepting the contention, the HC now ruled that Fatima can raise her grievances before the trial court, where the closure report is being filed. According to Fatima’s petition, Ahmad (27) was a first year student of MSc Biotechnology at JNU. He called her around 2.30 am on the morning of October 15, 2016, and informed her that something had happened to him. Worried, Fatima left for Delhi with her son Mujeeb. On reaching Delhi, she called her son again and told him she will be coming to his hostel room. However, on reaching his room, Fatima discovered that her son had gone missing. Ahmad’s mother had moved the HC on November 21, 2016, seeking directions to police to trace her son. She had also sought an SIT comprising members with “proven integrity from outside Delhi” to take over the investigation from the Delhi Police crime branch. As Delhi Police remained clueless about his whereabouts even seven months later, the court handed over the probe to the CBI on May 16 last year. On this, Fatima had asserted that it was a “political case” and that “CBI has succumbed to the pressure of its masters”. But the HC observed: “In the present case, this court did accept the plea of the petitioner at the first instance and directed the investigation to be undertaken by the CBI. This court is… not persuaded that the CBI is tardy and slow in the investigation or that it has not taken steps that are required to be taken in the matter.” “The question really is whether there is any justification for the plea that for the second time now, the investigation should be entrusted to another SIT whose work will be monitored by the court, thus removing the CBI from the picture,” it said. The court added that Ahmad’s mother “can raise all contentions available to her in accordance with law before the criminal court concerned after filing of closure report by CBI”. Fatima said she would approach the Supreme Court.