Allahabad HC orders CBI probe into history-sheeter disappearance.

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the disappearance of Muttliv, a Muzaffarnagar history-sheeter who has been missing since his release from jail on May 4, saying the local police appeared unable to conduct an unbiased investigation. Court also directed the CBI to submit a preliminary report within three weeks.

A division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev expressed “displeasure with the casual and cavalier manner” in which the police were acting, noting that the special team’s efforts largely involved visiting public places such as bus stands and government offices and pasting Muttliv’s photograph.

Court also found that police had not recorded statements of his relatives, neighbours, friends, associates or others known to him, and said this showed “no action on the part of the police in right earnest” to discover his whereabouts. Instead, it observed, the police appeared to be “managing to prolong” the proceedings before the court.

The bench opined that the local police were unable to conduct an unbiased investigation, either because of “lack of competence” or “deliberate delay”.

The division bench passed the order on August 31 in a habeas corpus petition filed by Muttliv's brother Alam. Court said the circumstances surrounding his disappearance required his whereabouts to be established, whether he was alive and hiding or had been killed.

Transfer of disappearance probe to CBI

The high court noted that following an earlier order of August 11, the SHO of Purkajipur police station, Dr Manvendra Singh Bhati, submitted that he had constituted a special team on August 15 to find him.

The SHO produced General Diary entries detailing the team's actions after August 15. Court, however, said the entries showed that the team was going to just prominent public gathering places and pasting Muttliv's photograph there.

The bench then asked whether police had recorded statements of people known to Muttliv or whether anyone had seen him after May 4. It specifically asked about his brother, relatives, neighbours, friends and associates.

The answer, the court recorded, was “disappointingly in the negative”.

The bench then expressed its “displeasure with the casual and cavalier manner" of the police and decided to transfer the probe to CBI.

What happened to Muttliv after his release from jail?

Muttliv, son of Sharaft, had been granted bail by the high court on December 17, 2025, and was released on May 4, 2026. He was a history-sheeter with around 30 cases registered against him at various police stations in Muzaffarnagar district.

According to the petition filed by his brother, Muttliv and his father were detained by Purkajipur police immediately after his release on May 4. His father was released on May 7, but Muttliv remained missing. Alam then approached the high court as his next of kin, seeking his production.

The State's case was that police were searching for Muttliv after his release to execute a warrant issued by the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 1344 of 2012. The high court, however, noted discrepancies in the police account concerning the dates of issuance and receipt of the warrant. These issues had also been detailed in the court's August 11 order.

Possibility of police involvement

The high court said Muttliv's absence could lead to two possible inferences.

“One” possibility, it said, was that because of his criminal history, he had been “done away” with by the police and his remains buried somewhere. The other was that Muttliv, who had a long history of criminal cases, was himself hiding to escape the process of justice.

Court said either possibility made it “absolutely essential” to establish his whereabouts.

“If he is dead,” court said, his remains must be found and responsibility fixed under the relevant law. “If he is alive,” he must be apprehended so that he cannot escape the process of justice by concealing himself.

The bench consequently held that the local police were unable to carry out an unbiased investigation, either because of “lack of competence” or “deliberate delay” aimed at prolonging the proceedings.

Discrepancies in police records

Court also referred to “aberrations” in police records concerning the receipt and execution of warrants. It specifically noted that an entry relating to a non-bailable warrant purportedly issued against Muttliv had been scratched out.

The SHO had stated in an affidavit that the alteration was made by the constable filling the records and was an act of inadvertence and carelessness.

Court asked what action had been taken against the constable as to whether he had been suspended, whether his conduct had been forwarded to the SSP and whether an inquiry had been held to determine whether the alteration was accidental or intentional.

The SHO gave no answer to these questions.

Court's directions

The high court has directed the CBI office concerned to obtain the case diary from the local police and investigate Muttliv's disappearance. A copy of the August 11 order, which sets out the facts and the discrepancies in the police records, is also to be provided to the agency.

Court has further directed the CBI to place its preliminary report before the high court after three weeks. The SSP, Muzaffarnagar, has also been directed to ensure that the district authorities provide all assistance required by the CBI for a “fair and neutral investigation”.

The case has been listed next for September 28.

Case Title: Muttliv vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Order Date: August 31, 2026

Bench: Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev

Tags: