- Madhya Pradesh Police seek cancellation of anticipatory bail for Giribala Singh in Twisha Sharma case
- Police allege bail was granted without considering WhatsApp chats and medical evidence
- Claims include evidence tampering and obstruction via selective CCTV footage leaks
In a major escalation in the Twisha Sharma death case, the Madhya Pradesh Police has moved the High Court seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to retired judge Giribala Singh, the mother-in-law of the woman.
The state has argued that a lower court granted her bail in a "mechanical manner" on the very same day the FIR was registered, without properly considering the gravity of the allegations, WhatsApp chats, medical evidence, family statements and the legal presumption applicable in the death of a newly-married woman within seven years of marriage.
According to the cancellation application filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the police have claimed that the sessions court failed to examine the WhatsApp chats exchanged between Twisha Sharma and her parents. The state has described these chats as containing "crystal clear allegations" against Giribala Singh and her son Samarth Singh, alleging that they showed the "grave extent" of continuous torture faced by Twisha Sharma. The police have argued that there was no prima facie ground to grant anticipatory bail when such material was already available with the prosecution.
The state has also cited Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, arguing that when a woman dies under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, the legal presumption operates against the husband and in-laws. Twisha Sharma had married Samarth Singh on December 9 and died on the intervening night of May 12 and 13, barely five to six months after marriage. Police have alleged that the lower court overlooked this crucial statutory presumption while granting protection from arrest to Giribala Singh.
One of the most serious grounds raised by the police is the alleged tampering with evidence. The state has claimed that although CCTV footage from Giribala Singh's house had already been seized by police on May 13 as part of the investigation, the respondent had allegedly saved footage with herself and later leaked "selected small clips" on social media. Police have argued that this was done strategically to influence the narrative, tamper with prosecution evidence and obstruct the investigation.
The application further alleges that Giribala Singh held a press conference on May 18, the same day her son Samarth Singh's bail application was rejected. According to the police, this conduct showed an attempt to obstruct the investigation and influence public perception while the criminal probe was still underway. The state has placed this before the High Court as one of the grounds for cancelling her anticipatory bail.
Police have also accused the retired judge of not cooperating with the investigation. The application states that notices were issued to her on May 13 and May 14, asking her to appear and cooperate, but she allegedly did not turn up. Even after anticipatory bail was granted, police say a notice was sent to her via WhatsApp on May 20 for questioning at her house, but she allegedly did not respond despite seeing the message. The next day, when a sub-inspector from Katara Hills police station went to her residence, her servant allegedly said she was not available and refused to accept the notice.
The state has argued that this conduct amounts to blatant violation of the conditions of anticipatory bail. Police have alleged that Giribala Singh is "deliberately avoiding interrogation", giving evasive replies and refusing to comply with investigation directions. On this basis, the prosecution has told the High Court that there are "cogent and overwhelming circumstances" to cancel her bail.
Another important ground raised by the police relates to the handling of the crime scene. The application says Giribala Singh, being a retired judicial officer with more than 35 years of experience, knew that the matter should have been immediately reported to police. The state has pointed out that the Laharpur police chowki of Katara Hills police station is only about 100 metres from her house, but she and her sons allegedly chose to take Twisha Sharma to AIIMS instead and did not inform the nearby police post. Police claim this led to tampering with the crime scene and other evidence.
The state has also relied on the post-mortem findings, stating that Twisha Sharma's death was due to ante-mortem hanging by ligature, but that multiple ante-mortem injuries, simple in nature and possible by blunt force, were also found on other parts of her body. The police have argued that this medical evidence, combined with allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty, made the case too serious for anticipatory bail.
The application mentions statements of Twisha Sharma's mother Rekha Rani Sharma, brother Harshit Sharma and sister-in-law Rashi Abrol, who allegedly told police that Giribala Singh and Samarth Singh tortured her after marriage over dowry demands and also harassed her by questioning her character. Police have further alleged that in April, after she became pregnant, she was pressured and forced to abort the pregnancy in the first week of May.
Police have also highlighted Twisha Sharma's last phone call to her family. According to the application, on May 12 at around 9.41 pm, she called her mother, during which family members allegedly heard Samarth Singh shouting before the phone got disconnected and switched off. The family then allegedly tried calling Samarth Singh and Giribala Singh several times, but they did not respond. Around 10.35 pm, Giribala Singh allegedly answered a call and informed the family that Twisha Sharma was "no more".
The state has therefore asked the High Court to recall and quash the May 15 order granting anticipatory bail to Giribala Singh. It has further prayed that the High Court direct her arrest and commit her to custody, arguing that the bail order ignored direct evidence, statutory presumptions, medical findings, allegations of dowry harassment, non-cooperation, alleged evidence tampering and the seriousness of a newly married woman's death inside her matrimonial home.
