The investigation into the death of Twisha Sharma took a dramatic turn after the Madhya Pradesh High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to retired judge Giribala Singh in a late-night hearing on Wednesday.
The court cited non-cooperation with investigators, the seriousness of allegations and the trial court’s alleged failure to properly consider evidence while quashing the bail order earlier granted by a Bhopal district court.
Giribala Singh was later arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation on Thursday as the probe into Twisha Sharma’s death intensified.
Twisha Sharma, a woman in her 30s, was found dead at her marital home in Bhopal on May 12. While the death was initially suspected to be suicide, allegations of harassment and dowry demands were later levelled against her husband Samarth Singh and mother-in-law Giribala Singh.
Also Read | MP tells HC Twisha Sharma suffered injuries before death, seeks bail cancellation
What the High Court said
During the hearing before Justice Devanarayan Mishra, the High Court observed that Giribala Singh allegedly failed to cooperate with the investigation despite repeated notices being issued to her.
The court also referred to injury marks mentioned in the postmortem report and noted that several key aspects of the case had not been adequately considered by the lower court while granting anticipatory bail.
According to the order, six injuries were reportedly found on Twisha Sharma’s body, including injuries on her arm, finger and head, which the court noted were antemortem and not caused while moving the body after death. The High Court further observed that WhatsApp chats and financial transaction details suggested allegations extended beyond Samarth Singh alone.
“It cannot be said that the allegations are only against Samarth Singh,” the order reportedly noted while criticising the lower court for not fully appreciating available evidence.
Allegations of evidence tampering and ‘character assassination’
Lawyers representing Twisha Sharma’s family argued before the court that Giribala Singh attempted to malign the deceased’s character after receiving interim protection. Advocate Ankur Pandey said the High Court considered allegations that Singh failed to cooperate with investigators and attempted to influence public perception regarding the case.
The victim’s legal team also alleged that selective CCTV footage from the residence was circulated online while investigators were still examining evidence. According to reports cited during the hearing, the police had already seized CCTV footage from the house on May 13. The counsels argued that leaking selective clips could amount to tampering with evidence.
The CBI also highlighted allegations that Twisha Sharma was pressured into terminating a pregnancy after her husband and mother-in-law allegedly questioned her character.
Trial court order comes under scrutiny
The anticipatory bail originally granted by the Bhopal district court on May 15 had relied partly on Giribala Singh’s age, observing that the 63-year-old was unlikely to abscond.
However, the High Court questioned whether age alone could justify anticipatory bail in a case involving serious allegations and possible influence over evidence.
Advocate General Prashant Singh argued before the court that Giribala Singh had ignored multiple notices issued during the investigation and that authorities were eventually forced to serve notices through WhatsApp.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Twisha Sharma’s family, reportedly argued that individuals with legal backgrounds may possess greater awareness of crime scenes and forensic procedures.
Also Read | Giribala Singh arrested after high court quashes bail in Twisha Sharma case
Investigation remains under spotlight
The Twisha Sharma case has continued to attract national attention because of the allegations surrounding the circumstances of her death and the public statements made during the investigation. The case is currently being investigated by the CBI, while Samarth Singh remains in custody.
The latest High Court order has added further scrutiny to the investigation, especially around questions of evidence handling, alleged harassment and the role of influential accused individuals in the case.
