Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, September 13
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday allowed regular bail plea filed by Kalyani Singh in the Sippy Sidhu murder case.
The order was pronounced in the open court by Justice Sureshwar Thakur.
Kalyani Singh. File photo
Among other things, Kalyani had contended before the Bench 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 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 and Arshdeep Singh Cheema, Kalyani said 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 itself had 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 CBI, on the other hand, had relied upon scientific evidence to say that Kalyani in the experts’ opinion appeared to be deceptive in her statement. The submission came as the investigating agency opposed her regular bail plea.
Appearing before Justice Thakur’s Bench, the CBI said experts from CFSL, New Delhi, were called for forensic psychological assessment of Kalyani. “On the basis of forensic psychological assessment and behavioural analysis interview, the experts opined that it might be inferred that Kalyani appeared deceptive in her statement about her knowledge and involvement in this case.”
