Panchkula, Dec. 21 -- The CBI court in Panchkula will hold extended sittings to record the cross-examination of the whistleblower and prime prosecution witness in the alleged castration case against Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, as the witness is currently residing in the United States. Earlier, in August, the court of the special judicial magistrate (CBI) had allowed the complainant's application seeking permission to be cross-examined through video conferencing (VC) from the US, citing security concerns, the long distance involved and logistical difficulties. During hearings held on December 18 and 19, the public prosecutor informed the court that a substantial time difference exists between India and the US. He submitted that when it is 4.30 pm in India, it is around 6 am in the US, and therefore the cross-examination could commence only after 4.30 pm Indian time. The PP urged all parties to cooperate to ensure smooth recording of evidence. The prosecution assured the court of its readiness to remain present for as long as directed. The defence counsel submitted that since the examination-in-chief of the witness had already been completed, the defence would attempt to conclude the cross-examination within two sittings and would cooperate with the proceedings. During the hearing, the holding investigating officer, a DSP-rank officer of the CBI, submitted a status report regarding coordination with officials of the Indian Embassy in the US for facilitating the VC proceedings. The CBI's public prosecutor informed the court that the Indian Embassy had suggested a tentative window from January 5 to January 9 for recording the complainant's evidence with the assistance of the Embassy or the Consulate. However, the complainant's counsel requested that the dates be fixed in the third week of January. This was opposed by the CBI on the ground that a tentative period had already been conveyed by the office of the Consulate General of India in New York. On a joint request of the public prosecutor, defence counsel and counsel for the complainant, the court fixed the case for recording prosecution evidence on January 8 and 9. In view of the time difference, the court directed that the complainant's evidence be recorded at 4.30 pm on January 8 and continue till 8 pm, so that the recording could be concluded on the following day, January 9, as per the time slot suggested by the Consulate General of India. Considering that the recording of evidence through VC from the US would extend beyond normal court hours and in compliance with High Court rules on VC proceedings, the court ordered that a copy of the order be sent to the District and Sessions Judge, Panchkula. The court also requested the deputation of an official from the computer branch to facilitate VC access and another official to ensure uninterrupted power supply during the proceedings on January 8 and 9. Earlier, the complainant had expressed a reasonable apprehension to his life, citing the alleged influence of Gurmeet Ram Rahim. He also pointed to the distance of over 13,000 km, high travel costs and extreme inconvenience as reasons for not appearing physically before the court. The complainant moved to the US last year. Meanwhile, one of the accused, Dr Pankaj Garg, filed an application seeking permission to travel abroad. The CBI sought time to file its response, following which the matter was adjourned to January 8 for filing of reply and arguments on the application. The case was registered by the CBI, New Delhi, on January 7, 2015, under Sections 120-B, 326, 417 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against Gurmeet Ram Rahim, Dr Pankaj Garg and Dr M.P. Singh. According to the prosecution, Ram Rahim, in alleged connivance with doctors, orchestrated the castration of around 400 followers, claiming it would bring them "closer to God". During the hearing on December 19, a prosecution witness informed the court that a person named Bappi, a co-villager from Shahpur Beghu in Sirsa district and a follower of Dera Sacha Sauda, had allegedly attempted to induce him to refrain from deposing in court and to settle the matter outside court. Taking note of the submission, the prosecution termed it a serious issue and a violation of bail conditions, and sought appropriate directions from the court. The accused, through their counsel, denied any involvement. At this stage, as the witness's evidence had already been recorded and no direct involvement of the accused was established, the court discharged the witness. However, the witness was directed to inform the court's Ahlmad in case of any future inducement or threat....