After UP Police Fail, Allahabad High Court Asks UOI If Central Agencies Can Trace 'Fugitive' Concerned With 1984 Appeal

A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar passed the order after noting that the Uttar Pradesh Police could not apprehend the Maulana Khursheed Jamal Qadri, whom the Court termed as "definitely a fugitive".

The development comes weeks after the same Bench refused to accept a report by the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, which stated that the convict in the 41-year-old criminal appeal had disappeared without a trace.

In fact, in its previous order, the bench had explicitly observed that a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) of arrest may be returned unexecuted in only two specific circumstances: if the fugitive is dead, or if he has fled the country, with tangible evidence to prove it.

On Thursday, expressing dissatisfaction with the continued inability of the Uttar Pradesh Police to produce the appellant, the Court observed thus:

"In view of the various orders passed by us, where the first appellant Maulana Khursheed Jamal Qadri could not be apprehended by the State Police, despite best efforts, we direct that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs through its Secretary, be impleaded as a party respondent by the Office forthwith under our orders."

The Court directed the Deputy Solicitor General for India, SK Pal, to seek immediate instructions from the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding the deployment of central agencies.

Specifically, the Bench asked the Dy. SG to verify if any of the Central Agencies can be entrusted with the task of apprehending Maulana Khursheed Jamal Qadri in order to produce him before the Court.

It may be recalled that in its previous order, the Court had remarked that it is the duty of the Police to find out wherever a fugitive from justice is hiding, even if he has concealed himself in any part of the country, howsoever remote.

The Bench had clarified that police cannot simply claim a fugitive cannot be found. It had added that an unexecuted warrant is acceptable only if the person is dead and beyond all mortal jurisdiction, or if there is material evidence that he has fled the country.

As stated, the case is a Criminal Appeal pertaining to the year 1984. The sole appellant-convict (Maulana Khursheed Jamal Qadri), who worked as a private tutor in Prayagraj, had been granted bail in April 1984.

However, decades later, when the appeal was listed for hearing, he was nowhere to be found.

Earlier this year, the Court initiated proceedings under Section 82 of the CrPC (proclamation for a person absconding) against him. By November 2025, the Chief Judicial Magistrate reported that inquiries in Muzaffarpur and Darbhanga (Bihar) failed to locate him.

During the proceedings on December 2, 2025, the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, submitted a compliance report, on the record, stating the efforts made to trace the appellant.

The report stated that the first surety of the appellant died in 2006 and the second one also passed away quite some time ago.

Regarding the appellant's whereabouts, the police report submitted stated that no useful information could be obtained regarding the criminal appellant's presence or residence at the recorded addresses.

The report further disclosed that the appellant had previously resided in a room at the complainant's house in Handia (Prayagraj) and taught Arabic to Muslim children, but had no permanent address in Prayagraj.

The report also revealed that the locals indicated that he was originally from Bihar. Still, despite police teams being dispatched to Muzaffarpur and Kaushambi and inquiries being made with local authorities, including the Chairman of Nagar Panchayat Sirathu, no corroborative evidence regarding his current location or even his living status could be found.

Having perused the report, the court had noted that, although efforts were made by the Police, it was not satisfied with those efforts.