Sippy Murder Case: Punjab and Haryana High Court to hear Kalyani Singh’s bail application today

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, July 26

Arrested in the Sippy Sidhu murder case, Kalyani Singh has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking regular bail. Her plea, seeking bail on more than 30 counts, is scheduled to come up for hearing before Justice Anoop Chitkara of the High Court tomorrow.

Among other things, Kalyani has contended that the CBI Special Judge, who rejected her bail plea, failed to appreciate that 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 of the 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 Sartej Singh Narula, Arshdeep Singh Cheema and Kanika Ahuja, Kalyani Singh added that the court had conveniently ignored the fact that 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 that the CBI had itself admitted on December 7, 2020, that the “investigation conducted till date revealed no direct evidence against Kalyani Singh”. It was also added that 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 Singh,” it was further added.

The petition said the “most material” aspect of the case was that the CBI had absolutely no evidence to establish that “there was any communication between the petitioner and the deceased for meeting in Sector 27, Chandigarh, on September 20, 2015”.

The petition further stated it was quite intriguing and surprising that the petitioner could not be identified earlier with the same available sketches and witnesses. But with the change in the investigating officer, the petitioner stood identified “not only to the extent of having conspired, but also being present and having participated in the shooting”

The Bench was also told that the CBI was absolutely clueless about the manner and reason for which Sippy Sidhu was murdered, but it went ahead to target the petitioner only on the insistence of his family and some external pressure privy to it.

After having examined all possible witnesses and those in the vicinity of the place of occurrence, the CBI, after four years and nine months of detailed investigation, recording statements of 178 witnesses, going to the extent of checking all possible electronic records, CDRs, locations etc, could not indict the petitioner. Thereby, they were constrained to submit a closure report under Section 173 of the CrPC report, to which even a protest petition was filed by the deceased’s family.