Tribune Information Service

Saurabh Malik 

Chandigarh, August 1

Justice Anoop Chitkara of the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket in the present day directed the inserting of Kalyani Singh’s common bail plea earlier than another Bench within the Sippy Sidhu homicide case after the Central Bureau of Investigation and the complainant objected to his Court docket listening to the matter.

Because the case got here up for listening to this morning, Kalyani Singh’s counsel Sartaj Singh Narula positioned earlier than the Bench an affidavit by the petitioner’s father saying he had no objection to the case being heard by the Court docket.

“Nevertheless, counsel for the respondent–CBI–on directions from Navdeep Singh Brar, IPS, Superintendent of Police, CBI, in addition to the counsel for the complainant, submit that they’ve objections if this Court docket hears the matter,” Justice Chitkara noticed.

Earlier than parting with the order, Justice Chitkara asserted that the matter be listed earlier than another Bench after acquiring acceptable order from the Chief Justice. Justice Chitkara, on the earlier date of listening to, had directed the petitioner, the complainant and the CBI —by acceptable individuals — to file “respective affidavits of objection/no objection relating to listening to of the matter by this Court docket”.

Amongst different issues, Kalyani had contended that the CBI particular Decide, who rejected her bail plea, failed to understand that the investigating company had not been in a position to carry up, or level out at, any new proof that might indict the petitioner “past no matter proof that was accessible with them on the time of submitting report below Part 173 CrPC on December 7, 2020”. It was evident from the remand software, and likewise the reply to the bail software, filed by the CBI earlier than the Particular decide.

In her petition filed by counsel Sartej Singh Narula and Arshdeep Singh Cheema, Kalyani Singh added the Court docket had conveniently ignored the truth that the petitioner had all these years by no means tried to affect the witnesses or tamper with the proof. It was evident from the truth that “there has by no means been any grievance from any quarter, even from the household of the deceased.” 

It was added that the CBI had itself admitted on December 7, 2020, that the “investigation carried out until date revealed no direct proof in opposition to Kalyani Singh”. It was additionally added that the prosecution was required to determine its case past the shadow of doubt in a felony matter. “Adequate proof has not come on file but for launching prosecution in opposition to Kalyani Singh,” it was additional added.


Supply hyperlink


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *