Archive · 4 Sep 2026
Allahabad High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Missing Man
The Allahabad High Court is trying to find out what happened to a missing man named Muttliv.
He was released from jail on May 4 and was reportedly seen being taken by police soon afterward.
His father was released a few days later, but Muttliv could not be found.
Muttliv’s family says the police may have detained him.
Police deny this and say they were looking for him because a court warrant had been issued.
The court noticed confusing dates and changes in police records about the warrant.
It also said the local police had not properly questioned relatives, friends, or neighbours.
The court has therefore asked the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate whether Muttliv is alive and hiding or was harmed.
The investigators must also examine whether police records were changed improperly.
The Allahabad High Court ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into Muttliv’s disappearance in Muzaffarnagar.
Muttliv’s brother alleged police detained Muttliv and their father after Muttliv left jail on May 4.
The father was reportedly released on May 7, while Muttliv has remained missing, according to the petition.
Police denied detaining Muttliv and said they were searching for him to execute a court warrant.
The court cited possible police wrongdoing or concealment by Muttliv and questioned inconsistencies in police records.
- Who
- Muttliv, a man described as having about 30 criminal cases; his family; the Purkazi police; and the Central Bureau of Investigation.
- What
- The Allahabad High Court ordered a CBI investigation into Muttliv’s disappearance and possible irregularities in police warrant records.
- When
- Muttliv was released on May 4 and allegedly disappeared afterward; his father was released on May 7. The court issued the CBI direction on August 31.
- Where
- Muzaffarnagar district, Uttar Pradesh, including Purkazi police station.
- Why
- The court said local police had not conducted an unbiased or sufficiently serious search and had provided inconsistent information about warrants and police records.
Family and Court Concerns
Police Position
What happened to Muttliv
Family and Court Concerns
Muttliv’s brother alleged that police detained him after his release. The court said his disappearance could indicate that police killed him or concealed his remains.
Police Position
Police denied detaining Muttliv and said they were searching for him to execute a warrant issued in a 2012 case.
Adequacy of the search
Family and Court Concerns
The court said local police had not acted in earnest because they had not recorded statements from Muttliv’s relatives, neighbours, friends, or associates.
Police Position
The police said a special team had been formed and produced general-diary entries showing that officers were searching at public places and putting up Muttliv’s photograph.
Warrant and record discrepancies
Family and Court Concerns
The court questioned how police could have attempted to execute a non-bailable warrant before the date it was allegedly issued and ordered the CBI to examine possible record manipulation.
Police Position
The police said the warrant was issued on May 13, while another record indicated it was received on June 18. The station house officer said a scratched-out entry was caused by a constable’s inadvertence and carelessness.
- Missing person
- Muttliv, also spelled Muttaliv in the court-related account
- Criminal history
- Police records described him as having about 30 criminal cases registered at various Muzaffarnagar police stations.
- Last reported release
- He was released from Bahraich Jail on May 4 after receiving bail from the High Court.
- Family allegation
- Muttliv’s brother alleged that police picked up Muttliv and their father; the father was reportedly released on May 7.
- Police position
- Police denied detaining Muttliv and said they were searching for him to execute a trial-court warrant.
- Investigation agency
- The Central Bureau of Investigation was directed to take the case diary from local police and investigate.
- Court concerns
- The court cited inconsistent warrant dates, a scratched-out record entry, and the absence of statements from people who knew Muttliv.