Done away by police or hiding? Allahabad High Court orders CBI probe into missing man

Directing the CBI to investigate, a division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev, in its order dated August 31, stated, “The absence of Muttliv can lead two inferences, one that on account of his criminal history, he has been done away with by the police and his remains interred somewhere or Muttliv himself being a person with long history of criminal cases is keeping himself in hiding so as to escape the process of justice.”

“Either way, an answer with regard to the whereabouts of Muttliv is absolutely essential. If he is dead, his remains must be found and responsibility must be fixed under the relevant provisions of law. If he is alive, he must be apprehended so that he may not escape the process of justice by concealing himself. Therefore, this Court feels that the local police are unable to carry out an unbiased investigation either on account of lack of competence or deliberate delay in an attempt to procrastinate the proceeding before this Court,” the bench stated.

The report has been sought in three weeks.

Case history

According to the facts submitted before the court, Muttliv is stated to be a history sheeter with about 30 criminal cases registered against him at various police stations of Muzaffarnagar. He was granted bail by the high court and released from Bahraich Jail on May 4.

The court order in this case on August 11 stated that as per the police record, Muttaliv is allegedly a recidivist and a compulsive criminal whose life of crime stretches from 2007 to 2017. The police, through the government counsel, submitted before the court that after Muttliv was released from jail on May 4, the police have been searching for him for the execution of a warrant issued by the trial court in a 2012 case.

The court, in its August order, had stated that the warrant was received by the police station on June 18, which was also the date on which a non-bailable warrant (NBW) was issued by the trial court. However, the government counsel submitted that the warrant was issued on May 13.

The court, in that order, had questioned the police claim stating, “… how the police was attempting to execute an N.B.W. even before it was issued by the learned trial court, so as to search for the petitioner on 04.05.2026.”

The court also had observed that it is not in the practice of the trial court to repeatedly issue NBWs when the first one itself has not been executed. The court then directed the police to bring the general diary entry of the police station of May 13 on the next date of hearing on June 18.

At the hearing on August 31, the SHO of the Purkazi police station informed that a special team had been constituted to trace Muttliv. He also produced GD entries of the police station in support of his claim.

The bench, in the order, expressed displeasure stating police were acting in a “casual and cavalier manner” as the GD entries show they are going around public gatherings like bus stands, government offices, etc and pasting Muttliv’s photograph.

The court questioned the SHO if any statement of the persons known to Muttliv had been recorded and whether anyone had seen him on May 4. The bench also stated that when the SHO was asked whether statements of Muttliv’s relatives, neighbours, friends and other associates were recorded to inquire his whereabouts the answer is disappointingly in the negative. The same shows that there is “no action on the part of the police in right earnest with the intention of discovering the whereabouts of Muttliv, but instead, the police is managing to prolong the matter before this Court”.

“This Court deems it essential to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation through its office which is relevant for the investigations to be carried out in the State of Uttar Pradesh, to take the case diary of this matter from the police and carry out the investigation into the disappearance of Muttliv,” the bench said.

The bench has directed the CBI to investigate into the aberrations in the police records relating to the receipts and execution of the warrants, the manipulation of the date by scratching out the entry relevant for non-bailable warrants purported to have been issued against Muttliv.

This was admitted to by the SHO in his affidavit stating that the scratching was done by the constable concerned who was filling up the records and was an act of inadvertence and carelessness. When asked about the action taken against the erring constable and whether an inquiry was conducted to ascertain if the manipulation was accidental or intentional, the SHO had no answer, the bench stated in its order.