Sippy Sidhu murder case: SC stays HC order, paves way for framing of charges
As per a lawyer, this order paves the way for the CBI court for farming of charges which could not take place due to the HC’s order. However, the SC order makes it clear that charges, if framed, will be subject to outcome of the case.In the Sippy Sidhu murder case, there has been a big respite to the CBI from the Supreme Court.
In the Sippy Sidhu murder case, there has been a big respite to the CBI from the Supreme Court, which has stayed the high court’s order, asking the probe agency to provide all documents to accused Kalyani Singh. The stay has paved the way for framing of charges, as trial interrupted for the last seven months shall now begin.
As per a lawyer, this order paves the way for the CBI court for farming of charges which could not take place due to the HC’s order. However, the SC order makes it clear that charges, if framed, will be subject to outcome of the case.
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 in 2016, it was transferred to the CBI. The central agency had at one point in time also filed an “untraced report”. But in June 2022, she was arrested by the CBI and later charged with murder. Since September 2022, Kalyani has been out on bail.
On May 8 this year, the high court had allowed Kalyani’s plea, wherein she had sought access to copies of documents filed by the prosecution, electronic data and articles not relied upon by the CBI in the challan, along with those relied upon by the agency in the “untraced report” filed in 2020.
The case was listed on December 1, where the additional solicitor general appeared for the CBI.
The counsel submitted that the high court had erroneously ordered for furnishing of even such documents, which are not relied upon by the prosecution, even before framing of the charge under section 227 of the CrPC to the accused.
“The counsel in particular referred to the view taken in the paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment dated May 8, where it is held that even the unrelied documents be furnished to the accused,” the SC order mentioned.
While issuing notice to the other party and giving four-week time to reply, the apex court ordered: “In the meantime, the operation of impugned direction (dated May 8) is stayed. In other words, if charges are framed without furnishing the unrelied documents, the same is made subject to the outcome of the case.”