HC notice to Punjab on petition by Dera Sacha Sauda worker

The petitioner, Prithvi Raj Nain, 71, through his counsel Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai, advocates Kirti Ahuja and Kanika Ahuja has contended that in the FIR number 63, dated June 2, 2015, registered at Bajakhana District Faridkot, wherein the CBI recorded statement of one Pardeep Kumar Sharma on July 11, 2018, the name of the petitioner does not find mention in the statement.

Thereafter, the case was taken back from the CBI and was entrusted to the Special Investigation Team (SIT). The counsel contended that the statement of Pardeep Kumar Sharma was again recorded by the SIT on July 3, 2020. In the said statement also, there is no allegation against the petitioner in respect of his involvement in any manner. Statement of Sharma was again recorded by the SIT on July 6, 2020, and name of the petitioner also does not figure in the said third statement.

It was submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that during the course of recording statement of one Mohinderpal alias Bittu though there was no reference to the name of the petitioner, in view of some reference of Dera chief, the Dera chief was sought to be interrogated and his production warrants were sought from the court.

It is only thereafter that a notice has been issued to the petitioner under Section 160 of the CrPC in the aforesaid FIR number 63, dated June 2, 2015. The senior counsel submitted that the notice under Section 160 of the CrPC has been issued to the petitioner in the capacity of a witness. The petitioner apprehends that in case he is also sought to be interrogated in the aforesaid case, then in such eventuality some prior notice has to be issued to the petitioner so as to allow him to avail his legal remedies.