Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Anticipatory Bail of Retired Judge Giribala Singh, Says Trial Court Ignored Key Evidence in Twisha Sharma Death Case

Twisha Sharma married Samarth Singh, the son of retired judge Giribala Singh, on December 9, 2025. The couple lived together in Bhopal, and by all outward appearances, life had just begun for the young woman. But on May 12, 2026, Twisha was found dead inside her matrimonial home, with the initial circumstances pointing to death by hanging.

What followed was not grief in silence. It was a storm of allegations, political outrage, and legal scrutiny that quickly engulfed the entire Singh household, with Giribala Singh, a retired judicial officer with a specialised background in cyber crime, cyber forensics, and crime scene management, finding herself at the centre of one of the most closely watched criminal cases in Madhya Pradesh in recent memory.

The postmortem report became one of the most critical documents in the case and one that the High Court found impossible to ignore. The report did not merely confirm death by hanging. It revealed six ante-mortem injuries on Twisha Sharma's body, including injuries on her arm, finger, and head.

The High Court specifically noted that these injuries could not have been sustained while removing the body from the ligature point or during transportation to the hospital. This distinction carries enormous legal and investigative weight. Ante-mortem injuries indicate that Twisha sustained physical harm while she was still alive, raising urgent questions about what truly transpired inside that house in the hours or moments before her death.

This single finding alone significantly undermines the narrative of a straightforward suicide and lends considerable strength to the prosecution's position that foul play cannot be ruled out.

Among the most emotionally devastating elements of the High Court order are the details drawn from WhatsApp chats and witness statements that investigators had gathered early in the probe. According to the order, Twisha was allegedly subjected to relentless harassment over her pregnancy. Her husband Samarth Singh and his family allegedly doubted the paternity of the child she was carrying, and pressure was reportedly exerted on her to terminate the pregnancy.

Twisha had allegedly told her own family that she was "badly stuck" in her matrimonial home. She reportedly told them that she was not allowed to live peacefully or even cry freely, and that she desperately wanted to be taken away from that house. These words, now preserved in investigation records, paint the portrait of a woman isolated, frightened, and stripped of basic dignity within months of beginning her married life.

The High Court observed that statements recorded from Twisha's parents and relatives consistently and repeatedly alleged harassment by both Samarth Singh and Giribala Singh from the very first day of the investigation.

Perhaps the most explosive allegation in the entire case involves Giribala Singh herself. The High Court took serious note of the prosecution's argument that the retired judge, owing to her professional training in cyber crime, cyber forensics, and crime scene management, may have used that expertise to tamper with evidence and potentially influence the direction of the investigation.

This is not an allegation that courts take lightly, particularly when it is directed at a former judicial officer. The implication is that someone who spent a career inside the legal system may have deployed institutional knowledge to obstruct justice in a case involving her own family.

Adding to this concern was the alleged leaking of selective CCTV footage to media outlets and social media platforms. Investigators had already seized CCTV footage from the house. However, the prosecution argued that certain clips were allegedly circulated publicly in a manner that amounted to tampering with evidence and a deliberate attempt to shape public perception in favour of the accused, before any court could weigh the material in full.

Justice Devnarayan Mishra was particularly critical of the Bhopal Sessions Court's handling of the anticipatory bail application. The High Court found that the trial court had leaned heavily on documents submitted by the defence while brushing aside key investigative material, including the WhatsApp chats, the ante-mortem injury findings in the postmortem report, the witness accounts from Twisha's family, and the gravity of the dowry harassment allegations.

The order noted that the trial court had failed to apply the legal presumption that is available in dowry death cases under Indian law. This presumption, once basic facts are established, places the burden on the accused to explain the circumstances of the death. Ignoring this presumption at the bail stage, particularly when the investigation was still in its earliest phase, was seen by the High Court as a serious error of legal judgment.

The Court also flagged the conduct of Giribala Singh after Twisha's death. Despite multiple notices issued on several dates, she allegedly did not cooperate with investigators fully and instead held press conferences that the prosecution claimed were aimed at maligning the deceased woman's character and reputation.

With its order, the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the anticipatory bail that had been granted on May 15 by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge in Bhopal. The case against Giribala Singh stands 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.

The ruling means that Giribala Singh can no longer seek the protection of anticipatory bail, and investigators are now legally positioned to pursue custodial interrogation if they deem it necessary for the investigation.

The Twisha Sharma case has sparked massive public, political, and legal outrage across Madhya Pradesh. At its heart, it is the story of a young woman who entered a new home with the hope of building a life, and who allegedly found instead a suffocating environment of doubt, harassment, and coercion.

The High Court's order is a reminder that the justice system, when it functions as it should, does not allow the gravity of such allegations to be buried beneath procedural shortcuts or one-sided readings of evidence. The quashing of anticipatory bail is not a verdict of guilt. It is, however, a firm signal that the investigation must proceed without interference, that all evidence must be examined with rigour, and that no professional background or social standing can place a person above the reach of proper legal scrutiny.

The case continues.