Honeypreet Insan/ Ruhani Didi
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
Who is Honeypreet Insan?
‘Papa’s angel’ Honeypreet, spotted with Ram Rahim on a copter, had meteoric rise| Aug 27, 2017| Hindustan Times wrote that Honeypreet Insan, [is] considered among the closest to convicted Dera Sacha Sauda chief ( Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan) and his likely successor.[In the Dera] her word is considered Singh’s decision...
‘Sources say at a meeting of volunteers, ( Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan) announced that she could be a candidate for his seat. Even now, her word carries a lot of weight in the Dera.
India Today adds: Honeypreet has declared herself on Facebook as the heir of Ram Rahim at Dera Sacha Sauda. Interestingly, after he was made an accused in the rape and sexual exploitation case in 2007, Ram Rahim had anointed his son Jasmeet as his successor.
Family life
Apparently Honeypreet’s original name was Priyanka Taneja. She is from Fatehabad near Hisar.
Her age?
No one knows.
However, in order to get married in 1999 she must have been at least fifteen then. Therefore she is likely to have been born before 1984--perhaps as early as in 1981.
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan selected her to be the wife of Viswas Gupta. The marriage was performed on 14.02.1999 at a Satsang held in the Dera
One day Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan, in front of his public assembly and in the presence of the Dera Sadhus announced that he was adopting Honeypreet as his third daughter. Vishwas Gupta was declared as his son-in- law.
Her father-in-law, i.e. Vishwas Gupta’s father, alleged illicit relationship and adultery between Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan and Honeypreet. In view of this, he moved out of the Dera with his family and shifted to Panchkula on 16.07.2004.
'Papa's angel' Honeypreet Insan
'Papa's angel' Honeypreet is closest to Ram Rahim |PTI | Aug 27, 2017
HIGHLIGHTS
A website -www.HoneypreetInsan.me, also introduces herself as "a great Daughter of an amazing Father."
Honeypreet acted in 'MSG 2 -The Messenger' and later had a special appearance in 'MSG-The Warrior Lion Heart'.
CHANDIGARH: She likes to describe herself as "Papa's angel, philanthropist, director, editor and actress" on social media.
Honeypreet Insan is the adopted daughter of Ram Rahim Singh.
Considered a confidant of the Dera chief, she has also emerged as his likely successor to head the controversial sect.
Honeypreet, in her thirties, accompanied Ram Rahim Singh when he was brought to the special CBI court in Panchkula for the pronouncement of the verdict in the 15-year-old rape case on Friday.
On her Twitter and Facebook accounts, she mentions herself as "PAPA's ANGEL, Philanthropist, Director, Editor, Actress!! Passionate to transform my Rockstar Papa's directions into actions!"
She has over one million followers on Twitter and more than five lakh on Facebook.
In one of her tweets, she congratulated her father on his 50th birthday on August 15.
"#HappyBirthDayGuruPa Congrats for d phenomenal 50 yrs! Thanx for turning every darkest hour into a brightest moment," she wrote.
A website -www.HoneypreetInsan.me, also introduces herself as "a great Daughter of an amazing Father."
The site also mentions Honeypreet's philanthropic activities and working for the welfare of the poor and needy.
"As the daughter of Revered Saint Dr. Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan, you will find her working for the welfare of others, just like her Dad," it says.
She has also acted, edited and directed movies on Ram Rahim Singh.
Honeypreet acted in 'MSG 2 -The Messenger' and later had a special appearance in 'MSG-The Warrior Lion Heart'.
2011: Honeypreet’s husband alleges in HC that Baba had sexually exploited her
Please not to miss the awe on the face of the cameraman. It seems to say, “So young and yet so knowledgeable about filmmaking.”
Honeypreet hit headlines in 2011 after her husband, a Dera follower, approached the high court alleging that Gurmeet had sexually exploited her. Later, he withdrew the petition on the basis of an out-of-court settlement.
Honeypreet is believed to be now living in the house of a Dera follower at Rohtak. Going by her social media profile, Honeypreet seems to be a colourful personality . She describes herself as an actor, director and editor who has assisted her “guru papa“ in his film ventures. Honeypreet also boasted about breaking action superstar Jackie Chan's world record by essaying over 21 roles in a film made by Gurmeet, according to media reports. She describes herself on Twitter as “papa's angel, philanthropist, director, editor, actress and passionate to transform my rockstar papa's directions into actions (sic)“.
Vishwas:‘They were naked, having sex’ (ZeeNews)
Vishwas Gupta, in his divorce petition, that he filed in 2011, claimed that he once caught Gurmeet in bed with his wife.
"I was staying at the goofa (cave), private room of Baba ji. My wife was with him. He had inadvertently left the door open. They were naked and were having sex. They were shocked when they saw me. Baba had threatened me not to reveal anything and had said that I will be killed,' Gupta, who was previously a Dera follower, told Mail Today.
However, Baba would never let his wife sleep with Gupta.
"She and Baba would sleep in one room," he claimed.
His allegations were rejected by the leaders of the Dera Sacha Sauda sect as they termed it concocted and baseless.
Later, Gupta retracted his charges against his wife and Baba and settled down the matter outside the court. "Honeypreet was adopted by Baba as he had bad intentions. He sexually exploited her as she was beautiful," Gupta had claimed, who now lives in secrecy, allegedly following threats from members of the sect.
The full text of the Hon. High Court’s order
Hind Ka Napak Ko Jawab (2017), directed by the father-daughter duo of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan and Honeypreet Insan
Hind Ka Napak Ko Jawab (2017), directed by the father-daughter duo of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan and Honeypreet Insan
Punjab-Haryana High Court
C.W.P. No.9480 Of 2013 vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 May, 2013
C.W.P. No.9480 OF 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
- *****
- C.W.P. No.9480 OF 2013
- DATE OF DECISION : 03.05.2013
- M.P.Gupta ...Petitioner
- Versus
- State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
- Present: Mr. Sartej Singh Narula, Advocate,
- for the petitioner.
- 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
- 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
- RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner states that he is the son of late Shri Ruliya Ram, who was an MLA from Gharaunda for two terms, i.e., from 1962-67 and 1972-
77. The petitioner is an Engineer who holds the Bachelor of Engineering Degree earned in 1968 from the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. He served in the State of Haryana as an Assistant Engineer. He took voluntary retirement from the post of Executive Engineer in 2002. He claims to be a devotee of Baba Shah Satnam Ji, who was the Head of the Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa, since 18.04.1970. Respondent No.4-Gurmeet Singh @ Baba Ram Raheem Singh is said to have been a follower of Dera Sacha Sauda and was declared Head of the Dera on 23.09.1990. The petitioner and respondent No.4- Gurmeet Singh were known to each other since the days of Baba Shah Satnam Ji. The petitioner says that the 4th respondent induced him to shift to Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa, on his retirement to serve the cause. He was asked to sell his property and invest his savings in various factories run by Dera Sacha Sauda on the promise of returns on the investments to meet his daily needs. He was also provided residential accommodation in the Dera campus and his family shifted to the Dera in 1997, though, he took voluntary retirement in 2002 only to join them.
It is pleaded that the 4th respondent [Baba Ram Raheem Singh] selected Priyanka @ Honeypreet, arrayed as respondent No.5 to be wife of Viswas Gupta son of the petitioner. The marriage was performed on 14.02.1999 at a Satsang held in the Dera in the presence of the 4th respondent, in accordance with Dera norms. The petitioner as father-in-law of the bride further states that the marriage ceremony was a simple without any exchange of gifts and dowry involved.
It is then alleged that the 4th respondent engineered the marriage to continue his illicit relations with the 5th respondent [Honeypreet Insan] or to develop such relations between them. The petitioner and his family was not aware of this, since the 4th respondent treated the petitioner as his brother and the petitioner's son as his own son. However, one day the 4th respondent in front of his public assembly and in the presence of the Dera Sadhus announced that he was adopting the 5th respondent [Honeypreet Insan] as his third daughter. Vishwas Gupta was declared as his son-in- law. However, after the said adoption, the 5th respondent [Honeypreet Insan] was not allowed to live with her husband even for a single day. She stayed at the Dera all the time. She accompanied the 4th respondent in all his religious tours out of Sirsa sometimes for long periods.
Hind Ka Napak Ko Jawab (2017), directed by the father-daughter duo of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan and Honeypreet Insan
The petitioner, father-in-law of the 5th respondent [Honeypreet Insan] alleges illicit relationship and adultery between the two. In view of this turn of events, he says that he moved out of the Dera with his family and shifted to Panchkula on 16.07.2004. But the 5th respondent [Honeypreet Insan] continued to live with the 4th respondent on which the petitioner says she was enticed by his power, popularity and financial wealth to live with him.
They claim that they made an attempt to bring back the 5th respondent [Honeypreet Insan] to her matrimonial home but she expressed her desire to live with the 4th respondent. All this led to the registration of an FIR No.181 dated 13.10.2011 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 504, 367, 323 and 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Sirsa against the petitioner, his wife and son, husband of the 5th respondent [Honeypreet Insan] . The complainant in the FIR is Priyanka @ Honeypreet. On registration of the FIR they were admitted to bail by the Court against which the 5th respondent [Honeypreet Insan] filed an application for cancellation of bail through Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-2317 of 2012 filed before this Court. The petition was, however withdrawn on 01.02.2012. It is then stated that the 4th respondent kept stalking the petitioner and his family to bring them to harm and they are being followed by the henchmen/followers etc of the 4th respondent. with a view to get them eliminated. This led to a Kalendra under Section 107 and 151 Cr. P.C. against seven persons responsible for stalking. Security by way of a gunman was also provided to Viswas Gupta from 12.08.2011 to 21.09.2011 which was withdrawn.
The 4th respondent is held responsible for withdrawal of security. The petitioner submits that since Viswas Gupta was handed over the management of a firm actually owned and run by Dera Sacha Sauda during the course of which business, an FIR No.9 dated 17.01.2013 under Section 406, 420 IPC came to be registered at Police Station Sohana, S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab, for dishonour of cheque issued by him. Viswas Gupta was arrested in this case on 20.01.2013 and was remanded to judicial custody and detained at Central Jail, Patiala. Viswas Gupta was admitted to regular bail on 04.02.2013. The 4th respondent is held responsible for these FIRs in this petition. It is said they are under stress of elimination for raising their voice against the 4th respondent for continued adultery being committed by the 4th respondent with the 5th respondent [Honeypreet Insan] . The petitioner's property and investments are also lost according to him to the Dera. The petitioner has attached the report of 2002 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, which shows the Dera Sacha Sauda in bad light. In para 3.10 of the petition it is stated that another FIR had been lodged against Viswas Gupta relating to a proprietorship concern concerning M/s Sunup Seeds owned by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent had nominated Viswas Gupta as Proprietor from May 2007 till August 2010. The petitioner's son has now received notice of cheating on 01.04.2013. A large number of blank unused cheques signed by Viswas Gupta have been mentioned in the petition. In view of this, the petitioner prays that an independent probe be ordered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, arrayed as respondent No.3, which can fairly and impartially investigate the trivils of the petitioner, his wife and son.
Mr. Narula appearing for the petitioner relies on various judgments of the Supreme Court in Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2010(12) SCC, 254, State of Punjab Vs. C.B.I. (2011) 9 SCC 182 and Akhilesh Yadav Vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi in Review Petition (Civil) No.272 of 2007 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.633 of 2005 decided on 13.12.2012. Mr. Narula also relies on the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal), 126, to contend that Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees fair investigation. He further submits that the State police is not in a position to serve the ends of justice and, therefore, an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation should be entrusted with the mandate to investigate the affairs of the 4th and 5th respondent [Honeypreet Insan] s in the background of threat of elimination at the hands of the 4th respondent and to enable him to retrieve his investments from the Dera Sacha Sauda of which he has been defrauded of by the 4th respondent.
Though, it is constitutional duty of this Court to protect life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India but in order to do consider the prayer the Court would have to take into account the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the extent of threat of elimination on account of non-interference, the status of the parties, their inter se relationship, their proximity with each other , the pleadings upon which the claim is found and many other imponderable factors, the strength or weakness of the local police and the principle of law enunciated by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and others Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others (2010) 3 SCC 571, in which the Court has observed as follows:-
- "69. In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly.
- 70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said Articles requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extra-ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations."
The bedrock of a claim for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation could be founded at least on an averment that the local police is not fair and impartial in investigating the above-said two FIRs against the son of the petitioner and one allegedly in the offing. If the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, on her free will, choses a path to follow, there is a little anyone can do in writ jurisdiction. Writ proceedings are not meant for washing dirty linen in Court or in public view or on any filthy pleadings presented before this Court, and that too to salvage the petitioner's son from criminal action by levelling scurrilous allegations without the son complaining. It is not the case set up that the 5th respondent [Honeypreet Insan] is staying in the Dera against her will. This is not a petition for habeas corpus of detention against the will of a citizen. The 5th respondent [Honeypreet Insan] has a right to lead her life the would she wants. Personal moral values of people should not normally be subject matter of investigation in writ jurisdiction as they would be beyond judicially manageable standards. If the allegations are taken to be true then it would remain open to Viswas Gupta to bring action on charge of adultery as a matrimonial offence. Viswas Gupta against whom the FIRs have been lodged, is not before the Court complaining of threat or elimination, or threat to life and liberty or that the local police is acting contrary to law. The matrimonial relationship between Viswas Gupta and the 5th respondent [Honeypreet Insan] remains a matter personal to him, which cannot be aired or vindicated in this petition to which he is not a party. If the petitioner has parted with his property and investments that would appear to be a civil dispute for which the petitioner can take recourse to civil law. Whether the petitioner was induced to part with his property unlawfully to achieve bliss is not an issue which can be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the nature of inducement is criminal in nature then the petitioner can take recourse to alternative remedies.
I do not find for the above reasons anything in the petitioner to support calling upon the respondents to respond to the petition. Even assuming that an offence of adultery is being committed, the writ court is not appropriate forum to correct morality. I also do not find reason enough in this petition to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to order a C.B.I. enquiry in this matter, where there is not even a clear and categoric assertion that the local police is playing truant or subverting justice. The burden of the song that the 4th respondent that is masterminding the FIRs and tailoring the results, then I am sorry to say, that the son of the petitioner appears to have voluntarily involved himself in business deals with the Dera, which he cannot easily distance himself from. The son of the petitioner who is not aggrieved in this case would be free to approach Court against the FIRs, if advised. In case such a challenge is brought the roster Court, it is trite to say, that it would examine the issue at the threshold in accordance with law.
For these reasons, I do not find that this is a fit case for interference at the hands of the petitioner or to direct the C.B.I. to investigate FIRs for cheque bouncing and for dowry, or to pre-empt future actions which which cannot be contemplated at present.
Dismissed.
03.05.2013.................... (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
adhikari .................... JUDGE
2017: After Gurmeet Ram Rahim’s arrest
2017, Aug : Ram Rahim wanted Honeypreet to stay with him in jail
Gurmeet Ram Rahim wanted a woman companion in Rohtak jail. He had petitioned in the CBI court to let his adopted daughter Honeypreet stay with him.
HIGHLIGHTS
1Honeypreet accompanied Ram Rahim till Rohtak [the jail of which city he has been imprisoned in].
2Ram Rahim and Honeypreet sought permission from court to stay together in jail . 3Ram Rahim threatened officials of getting them suspended if they did not allow.
After being convicted in the 15-year-old rape case, Ram Rahim and Honeypreet wanted to stay together in jail. Honeypreet had accompanied Ram Rahim till Rohtak in the helicopter.
PETITION IN COURT
But, before heading to Rohtak in the helicopter, both Ram Rahim and Honeypreet had sought permission from the Panchkula CBI court to stay together in jail. While Ram Rahim moved a formal petition, Honeypreet had made the request through her lawyer.
The CBI court denied the permission saying that it was not for the court to decide if rape convict Ram Rahim could have a companion in the jail or not. The court told them that only the government or jail administration could take the decision in this regard.
Honeypreet's submission was that she was an acupressure expert and was required to be with Ram Rahim, who, she claimed, suffered from acute backache and migraine.
FIGHT WITH JAIL AUTHORITIES
After court denied them the permission to stay together, Ram Rahim, later, spoke to jail authorities telling them to let Honeypreet stay with him in Rohtak jail. When the jail authorities cited the jail manual which does not allow a woman companion to be kept with a male convict, Ram Rahim reportedly threatened the jail officials. Ram Rahim told them that if they did not allow Honeypreet to stay with him, he would get them suspended.
Ram Rahim even lied to the jail officials saying that due to his backache and migraine, the CBI court had given oral permission for Honeypreet's stay in jail with him. The court had, in fact, allowed Honeypreet to stay with Ram Rahim in the court premises. The pressure was such from the influential godman that the authorities actually let Honeypreet stay with Ram Rahim in the VIP retiring room of the jail for nearly 2 hours.
When Ram Rahim was being taken to the jail barracks, he and Honeypreet created a ruckus in the guest house. Both Ram Rahim and Honeypreet told the jail officials to let them stay together for the night. But, the officials did not agree following which Honeypreet made some frantic phone calls to Delhi and Chandigarh before leaving the place.
Honeypreet, not wife, on Gurmeet’s list of jail visitors
- Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh apparently doesn't want to meet his wife Harjeet Kaur.
- The Dera chief has given a list of 10 names to Sunaria jail officials as regular visitors.
- Harjeet Kaur's name is not the list given by Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.
- Apart from Honeypreet, the names Gurmeet gave included all from his immediate family except wife Harjeet. The godman had given names of his mother Nasib Kaur, son Jasmeet Insaan, daughter-in-law Husanpreet Insaan, daughters Amarpreet and Charanpreet, sons-in-law Shan-e-Meet and Ruh-e-Meet, and dera management chairperson Vipasana and an old loyalist Daan Singh.
Sirsa SP Ashwin Shenvi confirmed that except for Vipasana, none of the persons listed in the communication issued by the Sunaria jail superintendent, were available for verification.
As per the jail manual, an inmate has to submit a list of 10 persons who will be visiting him or her in jail on a regular basis. Jail authorities get the verification of these persons done before granting long term permission.
Honeypreet charged with sedition, instigating violence, conspiracy
Haryana police [in Sept 2017] issued a 'lookout notice' for Honeypreet Singh, who has been charged with sedition, or instigating violence, and conspiracy in attempting to free Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh after his rape conviction [a week before].
Airports and bus and railway stations across the country have been put on alert.
Honeypreet, Ram Rahim's adopted daughter, allegedly conspired to free Ram Rahim from the security detail that was given custody of the self-styled godman after his rape conviction, said Hayana deputy commissioner of police Manbir Singh. She also allegedly "gave a signal to (the crowds) to instigate violence" after Ram Rahim's conviction.
A similar 'lookout notice' has also been issued for Aditya Insan, the mouthpiece of Dera Sacha Sauda who is on the run, and who's also charged with inciting violence after Ram Rahim's conviction.
Some reports say that Honeypreet has gone into hiding, while others say she is living in the house of a Dera follower in Rohtak.
Aditya is the main accused in the sedition case registered for inciting Ram Rahim followers to extreme violence following the conviction verdict. As many as 38 people died and crores worth of public property was destroyed in last Friday's violence. Another man accused similarly, Surender Dhiman, has already been arrested.
Police sources said both Honeypreet and Aditya were in the know about what Ram Rahim's followers would do if he were pronounced guilty
Honeypreet goes underground: first from Rohtak to Sirsa…
- According to the chairperson of Dera Trust, Honeypreet had come to Sirsa after the violence on August 25
- Vipassana Insan on Monday finally joined the probe before the SIT
- The trust head told that she had arranged an SUV and brought Honeypreet from Rohtak to Sirsa
CHANDIGARH: Chairperson of the Dera Sacha Sauda Management Trust Vipassana Insan on Monday finally joined the police investigations and revealed that Honeypreet Insan+ — adopted daughter of rape convict dera head Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh — had come to Sirsa after the violence on August 25.
Vipasana joined the probe before the special investigation team (SIT) headed by DSP Kuldeep Beniwal at Huda police post of Sirsa. During her three-hour and 20-minute questioning session, the trust head told that she had arranged an SUV and brought Honeypreet from Rohtak to Sirsa.
She claimed that Honeypreet had been missing from Sirsa from August 27 onwards and had cut off her contact with the dera's executive committee members. Sources said Vipassana was asked about the situation inside the dera complex before and after the conviction of Gurmeet. She was also questioned about dera functionaries who were communicating among themselves at Sirsa and Panchkula.
SIT also sought details about the private security personnel at the dera complex, weapons used by them and their training. "We have asked Vipassana about her Honeypreet's presence and communication with the other members of the dera management," DSP Beniwal said, while expressing inability to more details of the investigations. Sources said Vipassana told SIT that Honeypreet was accompanied by Pardeep Goyal Insan and Prakash Kumar alias Vicky. Goyal and Parkash, brother-in-law of dera spokesperson Aditya Insan, were arrested from Udaipur and Mohali respectively. They are in the custody of the Panchkula SIT.
Police have said that Pardeep had planned the dera head's escape from Panchkula to Himachal Pradesh and then to Rajsthan via Punjab after his conviction in a rape case on August 25. Parkash was present at the epicenter of violence at the 4-5 Hafed light point between sectors 4 and 5 in Panchkula.
…and then in village Balluana?
The big house in dusty Balluana village where the Dera Sacha Sauda chief's “adopted daughter“, Honeypreet Insan, is believed to have spent some time before her arrest wore a deserted look. Only a farmhand was available at the house a day after Haryana police claimed Honeypreet had spent a few days at the home of a staunch dera follower, Sukhdeep Kaur, who, too, was arrested along with Honeypreet. Sukhdeep's family are also ardent followers of the dera and have resided in Sirsa for over a decade now.
When contacted, IGP (Bathinda zone) M S Chhina and Bathinda SSP Naveen Singla denied that Honeypreet had stayed at Balluana after being booked on sedition charges. SSP Singla said police investigations had revealed that Honeypreet did not stay at Balluana, or anywhere in Bathinda. | TNN
2022: Renamed Ruhani Didi
Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram
Rahim, who is serving a 20-year jail term for rape
and murder, has given a new name to his
adopted daughter Priyanka Taneja alias
Honeypreet. The tainted god-man has named
her “Ruhani Didi”.
“Our daughter is called Honeypreet. Since everyone calls her ‘didi’, it causes confusion as everyone is ‘didi’. So we have now named her ‘Ruhani Didi’ and modernised it to easy to pronounce, ‘Ruh Di’,” Dera chief tweeted. Gurmeet is out on parole and has been addressing online satsangs. He gave a new name to Honeypreet following speculations that she would be the new dera chief.
“Many times, I
have explained to my devotees that one should
never consider oneself at par with a guru. It
taints your devotion,” the Sirsa dera chief said
during an online congregation. He also said he
had given a new name to Honeypreet so that
there was some difference between her and
others.
The film-making prodigy: 2016-17
Honeypreet Insan is a film- making prodigy. She has handled no less than 21 departments of film- making (including acting, direction, art direction, cinematography and editing) and has been Second Unit Director/ Assistant Director, Asst. Publicity Designer, Asst. Title Designer, Making and Still Advisor and so much more. Therefore, she is a prodigy because she has learned all this without any training.
“When her dad ( Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan) watched her putting so much of hard work and learning directing skills so fast, he thought of giving her a chance to debut as a director in MSG The Warrior Lion Heart,” says the official website of Dera Sacha Sauda.
Filmography
As an actress
2015 MSG 2 the Messenger
2016 MSG the Warrior: Lion Heart
2017 Hind Ka Napak Ko Jawab
2017 Online Gurukul (nearing completion)
As a director
2017 Jattu Engineer
2017 Hind Ka Napak Ko Jawab
See also
Godmen and cult leaders: India <>
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan <>
