According to the investigation by Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), Sajida Khatun was only 16-years-old when she was lured away by Ms Hafi Khatun, Ms Chakia Bibi and Mr Raju Molla, residents of Atghora Village under the jurisdiction of Haroa Police Station, with promises of a job. Sajida's father went to Haroa Police Station to lodge a report, but instead of registering a First Information Report (FIR), the police simply issued a General Diary Entry (GDE) and did not take further action to recover the victim or to arrest the perpetrators. Sajida's father went before the police at Haroa Police Station several times to request for an FIR to be made out against those he suspected had taken his daughter but was refused. The Officer-in-Charge, Mr Sumit Mondal, refused to accept a written complaint and proof of the victim's age.

On 10 December 2011, Sajida's father submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police for North 24 Parganas detailing the frustration of his endeavours thus far to recover his daughter due to the inaction and general disinterest of the police at Haroa Police Station. No action was taken consequent to this complaint.

On 13 December, the victim's father went once again to Haroa Police Station with a written complaint and a request for an FIR to be lodged against the suspects. Not only was the police officer on-duty unwilling to accept the complaint, but that police officer verbally abused Sajida's father. The Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station simply stated the an FIR could not be made out on the basis of that written complaint, and requested for Sajida's father to bring a fresh copy. When Sajida's father communicated his illiteracy, the Officer-in-Charge suggested that he pay for the services of Mr Doud Ali Molla, who would write the report on his behalf.

Mr Doud Ali Molla, who was in the premises of the police station, wrote a report as Sajida's father recounted the incident and the document was submitted to the Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station. Sajida's father noticed discrepancies in the new complaint but was no confident in his ability to read what had been written, and so said nothing. The new complaint was then accepted and an FIR issued (vide Haroa Police Station Case No 29/2012 dated 13 February 2012 under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code). Sajida's father later took a copy of the new complaint to others who could read it and discovered that his daughter's age had been revised upward to 20 years instead of 16 – he realised that the Officer-in-Charge had instructed Mr Doud Ali Molla to change certain details in the account. Sajida's father then submitted a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Basarat, North 24 Parganas narrating the entire incident, the criminal negligence and inaction by the police as well as the deliberate corruption of his report by the Officer-in-Charge at Haroa Police Station.

To this day, Sajida has not been recovered and the persons responsible for her disappearance have not been apprehended. Sajida's father was threatened by the Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station with no further action in the matter of his missing daughter should he dare to complain against the Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station; such a breach of professionalism and law in the formulation and presentation of that threat cannot be condoned by local and central authorities. Considering the lack of police action thus far to recover Sajida, and blatant attempts by the police to block or distort information supplied by Sajida's father, this threat has become quite redundant.

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) said that justice delayed is justice denied. Sajida has now been missing for over a year. Inaction condones and, in such cases, has the same criminal consequence as complicity, particularly where law enforcement agencies and provincial authorities have a moral and legal responsibility, as well as the power and resource, to timely help.

AHRC lamented that the district and state authorities have not done enough to bring justice to the victim and her family. Instead, they have been slow to publicly express their condemnation of human trafficking, to thoroughly investigate the matter, to punish those responsible and to render practical assistance to Sajida and her family.

The AHRC demanded that the Central Government and the National Human Rights Commission jointly establish an independent Commission to investigate this case of abduction, as well as the corrupt practices of Haroa Police Station; The central and state authorities act decisively so that Sajida Khatun is quickly recovered and returned to her family and Her abductors are charged and prosecuted under the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act.

It also said that the police personnel at Haroa Police Station should be prosecuted for their direct and indirect role in the extended detention/disappearance of Sajida; The investigating officer of Haroa Police Station Case No 29/2012 (dated 13 February 2012) should be investigated for negligence and inaction despite having the powers to act upon information supplied by Sajida's father; The Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station and Mr Doud Ali Molla should also be investigated and charged separately for the falsification of information provided by Sajida's father on 13 December 2011, when Sajida's father had insisted on the issuance of a First Information Report (FIR) concerning his daughter's disappearance; The officer who had verbally abused Sajida's father is booked for misconduct in the discharge of official duty (poor treatment of Sajida's father and unprofessionalism) and The government conduct additional reviews and reforms necessary to rehabilitate ineffectual institutions of law enforcement and pledge to bring punitive action against officers anywhere along the organisational hierarchy for failing to properly and honourably discharge their duty.