MP High Court Refuses Bail to Mother-in-Law Giribala Singh, Says Roles of Accused Need Trial Scrutiny

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has refused to grant regular bail to Giribala Singh, a former member of the higher judiciary, in the case connected with the death of her daughter-in-law, Twisha Sharma, observing that further investigation is still underway and crucial forensic reports are awaited.

Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari, in an order dated October 26, 2026, rejected the first bail application filed by the 64-year-old under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (Section 439 of CrPC). She has been in jail since June 2, 2026. The CBI is probing the matter as RC 4(S)/2026, registered under Sections 80(2), 85, 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (Section 304-B, 498-A, 306 and 34 of IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

According to the prosecution, Twisha met Samarth Singh, an advocate practising in Bhopal, on a dating application in February 2025, and the couple married on December 9, 2025, with the consent of both families. She was allegedly subjected to mental cruelty by Samarth, while Giribala Singh is accused of instigating her son and shielding him whenever Twisha complained. The prosecution also claims that the two pressured Twisha to shift her equity investments, valued at around Rs 20 lakh, into a joint bank account. Twisha was found dead at her matrimonial home on the night of May 12, 2026, and declared dead at AIIMS Bhopal.

Senior Advocates Surendra Singh and Ajay Gupta, for the applicant, argued that she had committed no offence. They submitted that the WhatsApp chats levelled allegations only against her son, and that statements of doctors recorded by the police showed Twisha herself wished to terminate her pregnancy. On dowry, the defence said Rs 7.5 lakh had been transferred by the applicant and her son into Twisha’s account, there was no evidence that her parents had paid any money, and nothing showed cruelty “soon before her death”. It was argued that she had already given a voice sample and that custodial interrogation was no longer required. They relied on Supreme Court rulings in Mahendra Awase, Jayedeepsingh Pravinsingh Chavda, Arnesh Kumar and Jayesh Khanna to contend that harassment alone, without clear mens rea, cannot amount to abetment of suicide.

Opposing the plea, the CBI, the objector and the State pointed to WhatsApp messages Twisha sent to her mother and sister-in-law before her death, in which she spoke of continuous harassment. In a May 9 chat, she said her husband had questioned whether the child was his. On May 12, they said, she had decided to return to her parents, and that evening she told her sister-in-law and then her parents that Samarth had turned aggressive and violent and that she was scared.

CCTV footage, the prosecution added, showed Giribala Singh, followed by Samarth, going towards the terrace at around 10:23 pm, after which she came down to open the main gate while Samarth, a cousin and a house help were seen carrying Twisha down the stairs. It was also alleged that the applicant contacted influential persons after the incident, and that the extraction report of Twisha’s iPhone and the CFSL report on the DVR are still awaited.

Justice Nirankari noted that disputes between Twisha and the applicant arose, prima facie, after the termination of the pregnancy. However, he found the defence’s reliance on Jayedeepsingh Pravinsingh Chavda misplaced, holding that its facts were distinguishable and that “the question of mens rea cannot be examined in isolation at this stage”.

The Court said the WhatsApp conversations, at this stage, “prima facie indicate the mental distress allegedly experienced by the deceased prior to the incident”. Citing the chats, the CCTV footage and the accused’s subsequent conduct, it held that “the allegations and the respective roles of the accused persons require further investigation and careful examination during trial.”

Noting that further investigation under Section 193(9) of the BNSS (Section 173(8) of CrPC) is still in progress, the Court concluded that it was “not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage” and rejected the application.

For the applicant, Senior Advocates Surendra Singh and Ajay Gupta appeared with Advocates Shivam Singh, Enosh George Carlo, Aswani Kumar Dubey, Deepak Kumar Raghuwanshi, Kapil Pathak and Jagat Singh.

Additional Solicitor General Sunil Jain and Deputy Solicitor General Suyash Mohan Guru, with Advocates Kartik Dubey and Abhishek Dwivedi, appeared for the CBI.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra and Senior Advocate Siddharth Agrawal, with Advocates Vikram Johri, Abhijeet Shinha, Ankur Pandey, Anuj Karnatak, Piyush Kumar Tiwari and Vikram Singh, appeared for the respondent. Government Advocate C M Tiwari represented the State.

Background 

Twisha Sharma was found dead at her matrimonial home in Bhopal's Katara Hills area on May 12, barely five months after her wedding to advocate Samarth Singh, Giribala's son. Her family alleged foul play, with her brother, Major Harshit Sharma of the Indian Army, claiming she had faced continuous harassment over a dowry demand of roughly two lakh rupees and restrictions on her access to money. An FIR naming Samarth and Giribala Singh followed two days later; Samarth was arrested in Jabalpur on May 22 after evading arrest for ten days.

The Supreme Court subsequently took suo motu cognisance, citing concern that a judicial officer's alleged involvement could dent public confidence in the justice system, and transferred the probe to the CBI. Both have been in custody since June 2, facing dowry death charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. In August, the CBI filed a 636-page charge sheet against them.

Singh's plea before the High Court comes after a special CBI court in Bhopal rejected her regular bail application last month, accepting that the probe was at a sensitive stage and her release could compromise it. That court noted her decades as a District and Sessions Judge gave her institutional influence that made witness or evidence interference a real, not remote, possibility. Opposing bail, the CBI had alleged she tried to influence the probe by reaching out to a CCTV technician and a salon operator, and by sending a representative to procure CCTV footage, while flagging her refusal to give a voice sample, citing call records, WhatsApp chats and witness statements already gathered.

Before the special court, the defence had also argued bail on humanitarian grounds, citing Singh's health in custody, the need to care for her nearly hundred-year-old mother, and rituals connected with Twisha's death. It was argued that Singh, drawing a regular pension along with a war widow's pension, was financially secure, making a dowry demand improbable. The court held none of these grounds outweighed the seriousness of the allegations.

Case Title: Smt. Giribala Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Order Date: October 26, 2026

Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari

Tags: