The Allahabad High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the disappearance of Muttliv, son of Sharaft, a resident of Muzaffarnagar, who has remained untraced since May 4, 2026. The order was passed by a bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Alam, Muttliv's brother, as next of kin.
The court noted that Muttliv is stated to be a history-sheeter with approximately 30 criminal 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 immediately after Muttliv’s release on May 4, 2026, pursuant to a bail order passed by the High Court. While his father was released on May 7, Muttliv continued to be missing thereafter.
The State’s position was that after Muttliv’s release, the police were searching for him to execute a warrant issued by the trial court in connection with a Sessions Trial case from 2012. However, the High Court observed discrepancies concerning the dates of issuance and receipt of the warrant, which had already been addressed in its earlier order dated August 11, 2026.
During the hearing, the Station House Officer of Purkajipur Police Station informed the bench that a special team had been constituted on August 15 to locate Muttliv. The police placed General Diary entries before the court detailing the actions taken by the team after that date. Upon examining these entries, the High Court expressed its displeasure with the casual and cavalier manner in which the police were conducting the search.
The bench noted that the police team was merely visiting prominent public places such as bus stands and government offices, pasting Muttliv’s photograph without undertaking substantive investigative steps. The court then inquired whether statements had been recorded from persons known to Muttliv, including his brother, relatives, neighbours, friends, and associates, to ascertain his whereabouts. The response was disappointingly negative, with no such statements having been recorded.
The court remarked that there was no action on the part of the police in right earnest with the intention of discovering Muttliv’s whereabouts, but instead, the police appeared to be managing to prolong the matter before the court. It further observed that the police were managing to prolong the proceedings.
Considering the circumstances, the High Court observed that Muttliv’s absence could lead to two possible inferences. The first possibility, as stated by the court, was that on account of his criminal history, he had been done away with 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 to escape the process of justice.
The court stressed that, either way, determining his whereabouts was absolutely essential. If he was deceased, his remains needed 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 evade the process of justice by concealing itself.
In these circumstances, the bench concluded that the local police was unable to carry out an unbiased investigation, either due to lack of competence or deliberate delay in an attempt to procrastinate the proceedings before the 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 warrants. It specifically noted the alleged manipulation of a date by scratching out an entry concerning a non-bailable warrant purportedly issued against Muttliv. The SHO had admitted in his affidavit that the scratching was done by the concerned constable filling up the records, describing it as an act of inadverence and carelessness. The SHO was unable to answer the court’s query regarding this matter.