The High Court of Karnataka on Thursday stayed the proceedings of a rape case against Nithyananda Swami of Nithyananda Dhyana Peetha in a trial court in Ramanagaram and issued direction to the Registrar-General of the High Court for securing the records of the case from the trial court.
Justice G. Narendar passed the order on a petition filed by one Lenin Karuppan, a former aide of Nithyananda. \
The petitioner questioned the procedure followed by the Ramanagaram court in issuing warrant against him, while complaining that the accused has been allowed to flee the country. The petitioner complained that the trial court did accept his plea to consider his statements recorded prior to 2014 as his testimony.
When the petition came up for hearing, the State Public Prosecutor-II sought time to file objections stating that they have to secure records from the Ramanagaram court as serious allegations are levelled against the trial court.
When the court asked about the whereabouts of Nithyananda, the State Public Prosecutor said the State would find out while pointing out that Nithyananda was given exemption by the courts from personal appearance during the trial of the case.
The State Public Prosecutor also stated that a report from the judge of the Ramanagaram court was required to be taken as allegations are levelled against the trial court besides securing records to ascertain the procedure followed and the allegations made in the petition. The State Public Prosecutor also clarified that Nithyananda was exempted from personal appearance by the courts.
Meanwhile, counsel for Mr. Lenin pointed out that Nithyananda was not in the country as the Gujarat police had issued blue corner notice against him and sought stay of warrant issued against the petitioner. The petitioner had contended that his earlier statement should be treated as his evidence instead of asking him to depose again.
As the court passed the order staying the entire proceedings when the petitioner’s counsel sought stay of warrant issued against Mr. Lenin, the State Public Prosecutor pointed out that stay of proceedings would impact the trial. However, the court adjourned further hearing while orally observing that what purpose would it serve if the trial was conducted in the absence of the accused.
