The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the anticipatory bail granted to retired district judge Giribala Singh in the Twisha Sharma death case, holding that the trial court had overlooked six antemortem injuries on the body and the statements of prosecution witnesses while granting her pre-arrest protection.
THE Madhya Pradesh High Court, on May 27, quashed the anticipatory bail that had been granted to retired district judge Giribala Singh in the dowry death case of her daughter-in-law, Twisha Sharma, holding that the trial court had failed to consider six antemortem injuries found on the body and the statements of prosecution witnesses, which pointed to allegations against the mother-in-law as well as her son.
The order was passed by a single-judge Bench of Justice Devnarayan Mishra on petitions filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh and by Twisha’s father, Navnidhi Sharma, challenging the relief that had been granted on May 15 by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.
The case concerns the death of Twisha Sharma, a 33-year-old model and actor, who was found hanging at her matrimonial home in Bhopal’s Katara Hills area on the night of May 12, within six months of her marriage. Her parents alleged that she had been subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment by her husband, Samarth Singh, a practising lawyer, and her mother-in-law.
An FIR was registered against the two under sections 80(2), 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. That the bail to Giribala Singh had been granted on the very day the FIR was lodged, and within hours of its registration, became the focus of considerable disquiet.
Appearing for the State, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the manner in which the bail had been obtained raised doubts over whether the trial court had considered the aspects relevant to granting anticipatory bail.
He submitted that, after securing relief, the accused had addressed press conferences and made allegations against the deceased instead of cooperating with the investigation, and that, in a matter as serious as the death of a 33-year-old woman, the respondent had shown no remorse.
Also read: What is the Twisha Sharma case?
Twisha’s father contended that Giribala Singh had held a press conference on May 18 in an attempt to malign Twisha’s image, that she had not informed the nearest police station about the incident, and that she had brought her directly to AIIMS, Bhopal, rather than admitting her to the nearest hospital.
The Central Bureau of Investigation, which had taken over the probe on May 25 and was permitted to intervene, supported the plea. Deputy Solicitor General Suyash Mohan Guru submitted that custodial interrogation might become necessary, given the mystery surrounding the death, the alleged non-cooperation of the accused, and the possible involvement of influential persons.
The agency alleged that the couple had doubted Twisha’s character on learning that she was pregnant and had forced her to undergo an abortion, a claim it said was supported by WhatsApp chats dated April 30, and May 7, 9 and 11.
It further alleged that a selective CCTV clip from the residence had been leaked on social media in an attempt to tamper with evidence, and that the respondent’s sister, a private doctor in Bhopal, had been present in the post-mortem room during the first autopsy.
Appearing for Giribala Singh, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramkrishnan defended the relief, the trial court having reasoned that the death occurring within seven years of marriage did not by itself warrant dismissal of the bail plea.
The trial court had also relied on money that the mother-in-law had transferred into Twisha’s account, and on a hospital prescription, to treat the allegations as formal in nature, and had concluded from the WhatsApp chats that the deceased’s complaints were directed at her husband and not at her mother-in-law.
It had noted that the respondent, a 63-year-old resident of Bhopal, was not a flight risk.
Also read: After Zeba Khan, every bail applications needs this affidavit
On examining the case diary, the court found that while the death was due to antemortem hanging by ligature, six other antemortem injuries were present on the body, four on the left arm, one on the ring finger and one on the head. The bench noted that a query report had clarified that these injuries had not been caused while removing the body from the ligature or carrying it to hospital.
On the question of whom the allegations were directed against, the court observed that, “there are clear allegations against the respondent and her son. From the WhatsApp chats also, it cannot be said that the allegations are only against Samarth Singh but the trial Court did not consider all these facts.”
It noted that five prosecution witnesses, including members of Twisha’s family, had stated from the outset that both the mother-in-law and the husband had harassed the deceased and pressured her to abort her pregnancy, and that the statements recorded on the following days had carried the same allegations.
The court further found that the money transactions relied upon by the trial court had been made on dates before and during the marriage, and while Twisha was abroad, rather than close to her death, so that it could not be presumed there had been no demand for dowry. It also recorded that the respondent had not cooperated with the investigating agency despite several notices being issued to her.
Quashing the relief, the bench held that, “in light of above factual aspects of the case and the allegation levelled against the respondent, the anticipatory bail order dated 15.05.2026…for the offense punishable under sections 80(2), 85, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is hereby quashed.”
With the protection set aside, the path was cleared for the CBI to seek the custodial interrogation of Giribala Singh.
Case Title: State v Giribala Singh, MCRC No. 24475 of 2026; Navnidhi Sharma v State of MP, MCRC No. 24405 of 2026
Other related case: In Re: Alleged Institutional Bias and Procedural Discrepancies in the Unnatural Death of Young Woman at Matrimonial Home, SMW(Crl) 4/2026
Leave a Reply