Sippy Sidhu murder case: CBI court rejects Kalyani’s plea seeking probe documents
National-level shooter and lawyer Sukhmanpreet Singh, better known as Sippy Sidhu, was shot dead at a park in Chandigarh’s Sector 27 on September 20, 2015
The special CBI court hearing the Sippy Sidhu murder case on Monday dismissed the application filed by prime accused Kalyani Singh, seeking access to documents relied upon during probe.
National-level shooter and lawyer Sukhmanpreet Singh, better known as Sippy Sidhu, was shot dead at a park in Sector 27 on September 20, 2015. His family has claimed that Kalyani, daughter of a former Punjab and Haryana high court judge justice Sabina (retd), killed him as they had turned down her marriage proposal.
The case was initially probed by the Chandigarh Police, but was transferred to CBI in 2016. While Kalyani was arrested by CBI in June 2022, charges are yet to be framed by the trial court amid filing of one or the other pleas by the parties concerned. Kalyani has been out on bail since September 2022.
Before framing of charges, Kalyani had filed an application before the CBI court to supply all documents relied upon by the prosecution, statement of all witnesses as well as the electronic data collected.
But the trial court rejected the application on the grounds that the documents sought for were not relied upon. Challenging the trial court’s order, she approached the Punjab and Haryana high court that allowed her plea on May 8, 2023, and directed the trial court not to frame charges till Kalyani is supplied with data.
However, CBI went to the Supreme Court (SC) that, on December 1, 2023, stayed the high court’s order, paving the way for framing of charges. However, SC made it clear that charges, if framed, will be subject to outcome of the case.
On February 6, Kalyani filed an application before the trial court stating that SC had stayed supply of only documents “not relied upon” by CBI and she should be provided relied upon documents.
However, public prosecutor Narender Singh opposed the application, stating that the matter was in Supreme Court, following which the trial court dismissed the application. The detailed order is awaited.
