The Allahabad High Court asked the Union Ministry of Home Affairs whether central investigative agencies could be entrusted with the task of locating and apprehending a long-missing convict in a decades-old criminal appeal, after acknowledging that the Uttar Pradesh Police had been unable to find the individual despite repeated efforts. The bench, comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar, made the direction while noting that the first appellant in the 1984 criminal appeal, identified as Maulana Khursheed Jamal Qadri, remained at large and was described by the Court as “definitely a fugitive,” with the State police unable to produce him before the Court. The matter arose after the bench refused to accept a compliance report submitted by the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, which stated that the accused had vanished without a trace, prompting the High Court to question the adequacy of the search and the extent of the efforts made by local law enforcement.
The High Court clarified its position on the execution of a non-bailable warrant of arrest, emphasising that such a warrant may be legitimately returned unexecuted only under limited circumstances, specifically if there is credible evidence showing that the person is dead or has fled the country. Dissatisfied with the report that the appellant could not be traced, the Court made clear that it is the duty of the police to discover the whereabouts of a fugitive wherever he may be hiding in the country, even in remote areas, and that a mere claim of non-location by the police was insufficient. In view of this, the Court directed that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs be impleaded as a party respondent and asked the Deputy Solicitor General to obtain immediate instructions from the Ministry regarding whether any central agency could be assigned responsibility for apprehending the fugitive and producing him before the Court.
The background of the case involved a criminal appeal filed in 1984 in respect of Maulana Khursheed Jamal Qadri, who had been granted bail in April 1984 but could not be produced when the appeal was subsequently listed for hearing many years later. Earlier in the proceedings, the High Court initiated provisional measures against the accused under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows for a proclamation for a person who is absconding. By late 2025, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had reported that inquiries directed to locations in Bihar, including Muzaffarpur and Darbhanga, had failed to produce any useful information concerning the appellant’s whereabouts, despite multiple field inquiries and local investigations.
The police report before the Court indicated that the appellant had previously resided in Prayagraj, where he worked as a private tutor and taught Arabic, but had no permanent address. Local enquiries suggested that he was originally from Bihar, yet police efforts to trace him in known or suggested locations were unsuccessful. The police also reported that the sureties who had guaranteed his bail had died, further complicating the prospects of securing his presence through bail or personal appearance. Despite these investigative steps, the High Court found the report unsatisfactory, prompting the judicial panel to seek higher level involvement and explore whether central investigative agencies possess the capability and resources to locate the missing appellant.
In directing the filing of an affidavit by the Centre on this question, the Court underscored the seriousness of the ongoing failure to apprehend the fugitive and reiterated that law enforcement agencies, whether state or central, bear a fundamental responsibility to enforce court orders and ensure that fugitives are brought to justice. The matter reflects judicial frustration with prolonged inability to secure the presence of an accused before the Court, even in a case that has persisted for more than four decades, and highlights the High Court’s proactive stance in seeking alternative mechanisms, including the involvement of central agencies, to address persistent enforcement challenges and uphold the rule of law in long-standing criminal proceedings.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.