Follower's Castration Case: Punjab & Haryana HC Directs CBI Court To Decide Afresh Relevance Of Docs Sought By Dera Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim

The Punjab & Haryana High Court on Friday (December 20) has asked the CBI court to decide afresh in 4 weeks the relevance of certain documents including statements of witnesses sought by Dera Sacha Sauda Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim for his defence in a case concerning the castration of his follower.It was alleged that a large number of followers were castrated at the behest of the Dera chief on false claim of “realisation by God”.Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said, "the Special Judicial Magistrate has, without evaluating the relevancy and desirability of the statements/docments craved by the respondents No.1( Ram Rahim) and 2, ordered production thereof. It appears that the respondents are attempting for a roving and fishing inquiry by bringing on record the statements and documents (supra), which is not at all permissible in view of the law laid down in Debendra Nath Padhi's case."In State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi”, [2005(1) RCR (Criminal) 297], the Supreme Court held that, "jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Code when invoked by accused the necessity and desirability would have to be seen by the Court in the context of the purpose - investigation, in- quiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code. It would also have to be borne in mind that law does not permit a roving or fishing inquiry."Stating that the CBI Court order failed that "test of legality", the Court set it aside and remanded the matter to the Special CBI Court for deciding afresh the applications filed by Ram Rahim, in view of the legal principles laid down in the High Court's order.The Court was hearing a plea filed by CBI in 2019 wherein the central agency had challenged the order passed by the special judicial magistrate, CBI.In 2018, CBI had submitted a chargesheet before special CBI court Panchkula against Ram Rahim and two doctors for alleged castration of followers inside the dera.As per the chargesheet, a large number of followers were castrated at the behest of Ram Rahim on pretext of “realisation by God”.Consequently he was charged under Sections 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 417 (cheating) of IPC. In an order dated February 16, 2019, the CBI Court had allowed Gurmeet Ram Rahim's plea for the supply of over 87 witnesses's statement, status reports was filed by CBI before the High Court in a sealed cover in 2015 when the investigation of the case was progressing.While challenging the order, CBI argued that the documents sought by Ram Rahim and other co-accused were not relied by it and not necessary documents for defence.After hearing the submissions, the Court referred to In Re: To Issue Certain Guide- lines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials V/s The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, wherein the Apex Court held that while furnishing the list of statements, documents and material objects under Sections 207/208 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate should also ensure that a list of other materials (such as statements, or, objects/documents seized, but not relied on) should be furnished to the accused..Justice Tiwari highlighted that, "not merely because any document has remote bearing to the defence, the trial Court should direct production thereof, rather the relevancy and desirability of such document is the most striking aspect for the Court to consider, while making any decision regarding grant of access to such documents."In case, any document has no relevancy or the trial Court perceives any dilatory tactic, it is well within the domain of the trial Court to decline production of such document, added the Court.The Court noted that the case diary is not evidence and its production cannot be insisted upon by the accused, except for the reasons prescribed in Section 172(3). However, the Special Judicial Magistrate did not bear in mind this provision while ordering the production of case diary, it added.Furthermore, the Court found that the Special Judicial Magistrate has also erred in directing production of the status report."The said status report is not a part of the investigation, rather it is informatory in nature and filed before this Court to apprise about progress of the investigation. Moreover, since the said status report is a part of the case diary, thus cannot be supplied to the accused until and unless the condition voiced in Section 172(3) is satisfied," said Justice Tiwari.In the light of the above, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the CBI Court to decide the application of Ram Rahim afresh."Moreover, since the instant petition has been pending before this Court since 2019, therefore, this Court deems it imperative to direct the trial Court/Special Judicial Magistrate to decide the applications within four weeks from today," the judge added.Case Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION V/S GURMEET RAM RAHIM AND ANOTHERCounsel for CBI: Advocate Ravi Kamal GuptaArchit Rana, Advocate for Aman Arora, ...

Follower's Castration Case: Punjab & Haryana HC Directs CBI Court To Decide Afresh Relevance Of Docs Sought By Dera Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

Follower's Castration Case: Punjab & Haryana HC Directs CBI Court To Decide Afresh Relevance Of Docs Sought By Dera Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers