Sippy Sidhu Murder Case | File Kalyani Bail Plea Affidavits: HC to Petitioner, Complainant, CBI

Hearing the bail application of Kalyani Singh, charged with the murder of national level gunman and corporate lawyer Sukhmanpreet Singh Sidhu aka Sippy Sidhu in 2015, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday ordered “the petitioner , the Complainant and the CBI, through the appropriate person(s), to file the respective Objection/No Objection Affidavits”.

Kalyani is currently being held at Burail Model Prison, Chandigarh. The CBI arrested her on June 15 after several rounds of questioning.

His bail plea was heard on Wednesday before Judge Anoop Chitkara’s bench. The bench ordered “the petitioner, the plaintiff and the CBI, through the appropriate person(s), to file respective affidavits of objection/no objection to the hearing of the matter by this tribunal “. The case was released for the next hearing on August 1.

Kalyani, through his lawyer Sartej Singh Narula, argued in his petition that his arrest was made to show that the country’s top investigative agency had finally solved a murder mystery.

“Neither the Claimant was in contact with the deceased on the day of the incident, nor is there any such evidence available from the CBI, despite a lapse of nearly 7 years, to the effect that the Claimant was present at the incident site. The description of the girl given in the press on September 27, 2015 rather reveals that the deceased was there to meet another girl he was dating at the time, which also goes with the character of the deceased established by the CBI itself. same,” Kalyani’s petition mentioned.

Newsletter | Click to get the best explainers of the day delivered to your inbox

Kalyani’s motion argued that the CBI special judge, who denied her bail request, failed to understand that the investigative agency had failed to bring or report any new evidence that would indict the petitioner “beyond any evidence available with them at the time of the filing of the report under section 173 of the CrPC on December 7, 2020”.

It was added in the petition that the court had conveniently ignored the fact that the petitioner had never attempted in all those years to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. It emerges from the fact that “there has never been a complaint of any kind, even from the family of the deceased”.