Done Away By Police Or Hiding From Justice? Allahabad High Court Directs CBI Probe Into Missing Man With 30 Criminal Cases
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the disappearance of a Muzaffarnagar man with around 30 criminal cases.
The bench prima facie observed that his absence could lead to two possible inferences, either he had been "done away" with by the police or he was himself hiding to escape the process of justice.
A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev passed the order in a habeas corpus petition concerning Muttliv, son of Sharaft, who has remained missing since May 4, 2026.
The Court noted that Muttliv is stated to be a history-sheeter with about 30 cases registered against him at various police stations in Muzaffarnagar district.
According to the petitioner's case, Muttliv and his father were detained by the police of Purkajipur Police Station, Muzaffarnagar, immediately after Muttliv was released on May 4 pursuant to a bail order passed by the High Court.
His father was released on May 7, but Muttliv remained missing thereafter. The petition was filed by his brother Alam as his next of kin.
The State's case was that after Muttliv's release, the police were searching for him for execution of a warrant issued by the trial court in connection with a Sessions Trial case of 2012.
However, the High Court noted that there were discrepancies concerning the dates of issuance and receipt of the warrant, which had already been dealt with in the Court's earlier order dated August 11, 2026.
Appearing before the Court, the SHO of Purkajipur Police Station informed the Bench that he had constituted a special team on August 15 to locate him.
The police placed General Diary entries before the Court showing the actions taken by the team after August 15. After examining the entries, the High Court expressed its "displeasure with the casual and cavalier manner" in which the police were acting.
The Court noted that the police team was going around various places of prominent public gatherings, including bus stands and government offices and pasting Muttliv's photograph.
The Bench then asked the SHO whether statements had been recorded of persons known to Muttliv and whether anyone had seen him after May 4.
The Court further asked whether statements of Muttliv's brother, other relatives, neighbours, friends and associates had been recorded to ascertain his whereabouts.
The answer, the Court noted, was “disappointingly in the negative.”
"…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", the bench further remarked.
The Court also observed that the police were "managing to prolong the matter before this Court".
The High Court then considered the circumstances surrounding Muttliv's disappearance and observed that his absence could lead to two inferences. The first possibility, according to the Court, was that: "on account of his criminal history, he has been done away by the police and his remains interred somewhere".
The second was that Muttliv, being a person with a long history of criminal cases, was "keeping himself in hiding so as to escape the process of justice".
The Court stressed that, either way, determining his whereabouts was "absolutely essential".
It said that if he was dead, his remains had to be found and responsibility fixed under the relevant provisions of law. If he was alive, he had to be apprehended so that he could not escape the process of justice by concealing himself.
In these circumstances, the Bench concluded:
"…this Court feels that the local police is 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".
Hence, the High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to take the case diary from the local police and carry out the investigation into Muttliv's disappearance.
While directing the CBI probe, the Court also referred to "aberrations in the police records relating to the receipts and execution of the warrants".
It specifically referred to the alleged manipulation of the date by scratching out an entry relating to the non-bailable warrant purportedly issued against Muttliv.
The Court noted that the SHO had admitted in his affidavit that the scratching was done by the concerned constable who was filling up the records, describing it as an act of "inadvertence and carelessness".
The SHO could not answer Court's query as to what action had been taken against the constable, including whether he had been suspended, whether his conduct had been forwarded to the SSP and whether an inquiry had been conducted to determine whether the manipulation was accidental or intentional.
The CBI has been directed to place a preliminary report before the High Court after 3 weeks. The SSP, Muzaffarnagar has also been directed to ensure that all assistance required by the CBI is provided by the district authorities for conducting a "fair and neutral investigation".
The matter has been listed for September 28, 2026.
Case title - Muttliv vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 647
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 647