Sippy murder case: List bail plea of Kalyani Singh before another Bench, directs Justice Chitkara

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 1

Justice Anoop Chitkara of the Punjab and Haryana High Court today directed the placing of Kalyani Singh’s regular bail plea before some other Bench in the Sippy Sidhu murder case after the Central Bureau of Investigation and the complainant objected to his court hearing the matter.

As the case came up for hearing this morning, Kalyani’s counsel Sartaj Singh Narula placed before the Bench an affidavit by the petitioner’s father, saying he had no objection to the case being heard by the court.

“However, counsel for the respondent-CBI, on instructions from Navdeep Singh Brar, SP, CBI, as well as the counsel for the complainant, submit they have objections if this court hears the matter,” Justice Chitkara observed.

Justice Chitkara asserted let the matter be listed before some other Bench after obtaining appropriate order from the Chief Justice. Justice Chitkara, on the previous date of hearing, had directed the petitioner, complainant and the CBI — through appropriate persons — to file “respective affidavits of objection/no objection regarding hearing of the matter by this court”. Among other things, Kalyani had contended the CBI special judge, who rejected her bail plea, failed to appreciate the investigating agency had not been able to bring up, or point out at, any new evidence that would indict the petitioner “beyond whatever evidence that was available with them at the time of filing report under Section 173, CrPC, on December 7, 2020”. It was evident from the remand application, and also the reply to the bail application, filed by the CBI before the special judge.

In her petition filed through counsel Narula and Arshdeep Singh Cheema, Kalyani added the court had conveniently ignored the fact the petitioner had all these years never tried to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. It was evident from the fact that “there has never been any complaint from any quarter, even from the family of the deceased”.

It was added the CBI had itself admitted on December 7, 2020, the “investigation conducted to date revealed no direct evidence against Kalyani”. It was also added the prosecution was required to establish its case beyond the shadow of doubt in a criminal matter. “Sufficient evidence has not come on record yet for launching prosecution against Kalyani,” it was further added.

Objection by CBI

• Kalyani’s counsel had placed before the Bench an affidavit by petitioner’s father, saying he had no objection to the case being heard by the court
• However, Justice Chitkara said counsel for the CBI had submitted they had objections if the court heard the matter

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.

#Sippy murder case