- Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed anticipatory bail of retired judge Giribala Singh in Twisha Sharma case
- The court criticised the trial court for ignoring key evidence and witness statements
- Twisha Sharma died five months after marriage amid allegations of dowry harassment and forced abortion
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday tore apart the anticipatory bail granted to retired judge Giribala Singh in the sensational Twisha Sharma death case, observing that the trial court had ignored crucial evidence, failed to properly appreciate witness statements and overlooked serious allegations surrounding the mysterious death of the 33-year-old woman inside her matrimonial home in Bhopal.
In a scathing 17-page order, Justice Devnarayan Mishra quashed the anticipatory bail granted by the Bhopal Sessions Court, clearing the way for custodial interrogation in a case that has already triggered massive political, legal and public outrage. The High Court said the lower court had relied heavily on defence documents while ignoring key material collected during the investigation, including WhatsApp chats, witness statements, allegations of dowry harassment and the suspicious circumstances surrounding Twisha Sharma's death.
According to the order, Twisha Sharma married Samarth Singh, son of Giribala Singh, on December 9, 2025, and died barely five months later on May 12, 2026, allegedly by hanging inside her matrimonial home in Bhopal.
But what appears to have shaken the High Court most were the allegations emerging from WhatsApp chats and witness statements. The order records allegations that Twisha was repeatedly harassed over her pregnancy, that her husband and in-laws doubted the paternity of the child in her womb, and that pressure was allegedly exerted on her to terminate the pregnancy.
The Court also noted that Twisha had allegedly told her family she was "badly stuck", that she was not allowed to live peacefully or even cry freely, and that she wanted to be taken away from her matrimonial house.
The High Court highlighted that the postmortem report revealed not just death by hanging but six ante-mortem injuries on Twisha's body, including injuries on her arm, finger and head, and specifically noted that these injuries could not have been caused while taking down the body from the ligature or transporting her to hospital.
The Court further observed that statements recorded from Twisha's parents and relatives consistently alleged harassment by both Samarth Singh and Giribala Singh from the very first day of investigation.
The High Court also took serious note of allegations that Giribala Singh, a retired judicial officer trained in cyber crime, cyber forensics and crime scene management, may have used her expertise to tamper with evidence and influence the course of the investigation.
Another major issue flagged before the Court was the alleged leaking of selective CCTV footage to the media and social platforms. The prosecution argued that while police had already seized CCTV footage from the house, selective clips were allegedly circulated publicly in a manner that could amount to tampering with evidence and an attempt to influence public perception.
The Court also appeared troubled by the conduct alleged against the accused after the death. The prosecution claimed that despite repeated notices issued on multiple dates, Giribala Singh did not cooperate fully with investigators and instead held press conferences allegedly maligning the deceased.
In sharp remarks, the High Court observed that the trial court had failed to consider the legal presumption available in dowry death cases, ignored crucial witness statements and prematurely accepted defence explanations at a stage when the investigation was still at a very initial phase.
The Court ultimately ruled that given the gravity of the allegations, the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death, the possibility of influence over evidence and the serious accusations of dowry harassment and forced abortion pressure, the anticipatory bail order could not survive judicial scrutiny.
The High Court then quashed the anticipatory bail granted on May 15 by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in the case registered under Sections 80(2), 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
