Introduction:
The Kerala High Court, in Sajeev S. v. State of Kerala and Others (WP(Crl.) No. 1188 of 2026), has sought the State Government’s response to a petition seeking transfer of investigation into a 12-year-old missing person case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Justice G. Girish granted time to the Public Prosecutor to obtain instructions from the State and posted the matter for further hearing on August 18.
The petition was filed by Sajeev S., a resident of Nariyampara, alleging that his brother, Subash, mysteriously disappeared on April 22, 2014. According to the petitioner, a missing person case was registered by the Kattappana Police under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act soon after the disappearance. However, despite the passage of more than a decade, the investigation has made no meaningful progress. The petitioner contends that the prolonged inaction has deprived the family of answers regarding the fate of the missing person and has shaken their confidence in the local police investigation.
The plea also highlights longstanding disputes among family members over ancestral property. The petitioner suspects that certain relatives may have been involved in his brother’s disappearance and believes that crucial evidence may still exist if scientific investigation is undertaken. On these allegations, the petitioner seeks transfer of the investigation to the CBI along with directions for a comprehensive forensic examination of the property identified by him.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner argued that despite promptly informing the police and registration of the missing person case in 2014, the investigation remained virtually stagnant for over twelve years. He submitted that repeated representations before the investigating officers, senior police officials, the State Government and even the Chief Minister failed to produce any meaningful result. According to him, the authorities neither conducted an effective investigation nor explored scientific methods capable of uncovering the truth behind his brother’s disappearance.
The petitioner further submitted that family disputes concerning ancestral property provided a possible motive for the disappearance. He expressed a strong apprehension that his brother had been murdered and buried within adjoining family property. Although this suspicion was repeatedly brought to the notice of the investigating agency, no scientific excavation or forensic examination was undertaken. The petitioner stated that investigating officers had initially assured the family that excavation would be conducted but later withdrew from that assurance without assigning any reason.
It was further contended that only a systematic forensic search, including excavation of the identified property, could reveal whether human remains or other incriminating material existed. If skeletal remains were discovered, the petitioner sought directions for exhumation under judicial supervision, DNA profiling and other forensic examinations to establish the identity of the deceased and the cause of death. The petitioner also pointed out that he was unable to obtain even a copy of the FIR because he was informed that old police records had been destroyed.
At this stage, the State did not place its detailed response on record. The Public Prosecutor sought time from the Court to obtain instructions regarding the allegations and the reliefs sought by the petitioner.
Court’s Judgment:
The Kerala High Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the allegations at the present stage. However, considering the serious nature of the grievance and the reliefs sought, Justice G. Girish directed the State to respond to the petition. The Court granted time to the Public Prosecutor to obtain instructions from the concerned authorities and posted the matter for further consideration on August 18.
The petition raises significant issues relating to the fairness and effectiveness of criminal investigations in long-pending missing person cases. The petitioner seeks transfer of the investigation to the CBI on the ground that the local police have failed to make meaningful progress despite the lapse of twelve years. The plea also requests judicial directions for scientific investigation through excavation of the suspected property, forensic examination, DNA profiling and, if necessary, exhumation under the supervision of the jurisdictional Magistrate.
Although no substantive directions have yet been issued, the High Court’s decision to seek the State’s response indicates that the allegations warrant judicial consideration. The Court is expected to examine whether the circumstances justify transfer of investigation to an independent agency and whether further scientific investigation is necessary to ascertain the truth behind the disappearance.
The matter assumes importance because constitutional courts have consistently recognised that a fair, impartial and effective investigation forms an essential component of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Where serious allegations of investigative failure are made, High Courts possess wide powers under Article 226 to ensure that justice is not defeated by inaction or procedural lapses.
The case will now be considered after the State places its response on record. The outcome may determine whether further investigation by the local police is sufficient or whether an independent agency such as the CBI should be entrusted with uncovering the truth behind the disappearance of the missing person.