Augustine George Masih, J.

CRM-36245-2017

1. Application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Reply on behalf of respondent-CBI is taken on record.

CRM-40212-2017

2. Application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Filing of certified/typed copies of Annexure R-7/1 to R-7/22 is dispensed with and the same are taken on record.

CRM-40373-2017

3. Application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Filing of certified/true typed copies of Annexure R-2/1 to R-2/2 is dispensed with and the same are taken on record.

CRR-3592-2017 (O&M)

4. By this order, I propose to decide two revision petitions i.e. CRR No. 3592 of 2017 titled as Khatta Singh vs. C.B.I. Chandigarh and others and CRR No. 274 of 2018 titled as Khatta Singh vs. C.B.I. Chandigarh and others, preferred by Khatta Singh, who appeared as a Prosecution Witness No. 31 in RC No. 8 and RC No. 10, CBI vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and others challenging the order passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI) Haryana at Panchkula dated 25.09.2017 in RC-8(S)/2003/CBI/SCB/CHG., dated 09.12.2003 under Sections 302/120-B/506 IPC and order dated 06.01.2018 in RC-10(S)/2003/CBI/SCB/CHG. Dated 24.07.2008 under Sections 302/307/120-B IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, wherein two separate applications preferred by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr. P.C. for recalling him as a witness in the case stand dismissed.

5. Counsel for the parties have accepted that the statement given by the petitioner in these two above referred cases was common and, therefore, these cases can be heard together and decided by a single order. Counsel for the parties have, therefore, addressed their arguments in Criminal Revision No. 3592 of 2017 as the application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr. P.C. is based upon identical facts, grounds and reasons and the order passed by the trial Court is also similarly worded and based upon identical reasons.

6. Briefly, the petitioner in his application has pointed out that he is an ex-devotee of Dera Sacha Sauda and had been working as a driver on the bus, which was being used by Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'Dera Chief')-respondent No. 1 to travel outside the Dera. He has personal knowledge about the commission of crime and the circumstances which led to the murder of Ranjit Singh and Ram Chander Chhatarpati, a Journalist. On the basis of an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 10.11.2003, the matter was referred to the CBI for investigation. Charge-sheet was filed on 30.07.2007. Statement of the petitioner was recorded by Sh. M. Narayanan, Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBI and the Chief Investigating Officer of the case against Dera Sacha Sauda under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 21.06.2007. Petitioner, thereafter, volunteered and got recorded his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chandigarh on 22.06.2007.

7. It is asserted that the petitioner appeared as a prosecution witness on 11.02.2012 i.e. after a period of almost five years but by then, Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh being the Dera Head had garnered large following of devotees with political leaders of all parties frequenting the Dera. Dera Chief because of his political and mass clout was provided security guards by the Central Government and the State Governments of Punjab and Haryana, which created a sense of insecurity amongst the people like the petitioner. He, thus, could not come out and speak the truth about the criminal activities indulged in by the Dera Chief and the others inside and outside the Dera premises. The Dera Chief had diehard followers who were ready to kill or die on his command. The co-accused, it is alleged, had acted on his direction and dictate to kill Ranjit Singh and Ram Chander Chhatarpati. Because of this sense of insecurity and threat, the petitioner, when appeared before the trial Court on 11.02.2012 as Prosecution Witness No. 31, resiled from his statement which he had