Presence Outside Could Hamper Fair Probe: Twisha Sharma’s Father Opposes Giribala Singh’s Bail Plea

Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, appearing for Twisha Sharma’s father, Navnidhi Sharma, opposed the bail plea of Giribala Singh before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, arguing that releasing her while the investigation is still on could put the course of justice at risk.

Before the bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari, calling bail “a jurisdiction of trust”, Sr Adv Aggarwal said a person’s past conduct is a reflection of what can be expected from them in future. Irrespective of the merits, he submitted, Giribala’s conduct shows a propensity to influence the investigation.

Aggarwal began by answering the objection that no protest petition had been filed against the CBI charge sheet. He said the claim that the agency had exonerated Giribala of certain offences was wrong, because the investigation remains pending and the court has already accepted that further investigation is going on. In such a situation, he argued, the question of filing a protest petition does not arise.

Turning to the evidence, he said courts usually depend on statements of the deceased’s family members, but this case also has the accused’s own words, preserved in WhatsApp chats, phone calls and recordings. All of this, he argued, shows that Twisha, described by the defence itself as independent, capable and self-sufficient, was reduced to “a shadow of herself” after her marriage.

Referring to call detail records of Giribala, Aggarwal said the incident took place on May 12, and in the next 24 hours she made about a dozen calls, including to persons in judicial and bureaucratic positions and to people who later became witnesses in the case. He submitted that this shows her ability to reach and influence people in positions of authority.

He then pointed to witness statements on CCTV footage. A CCTV service provider stated that Giribala called him on the morning of May 13, asking him to send a technician to retrieve the recording from her residence. The footage was copied twice, with one copy going to her and another to the police, and the technician could not recall whether it was sealed.

Similarly, the owner of the salon Twisha had visited on May 12 stated that Giribala called her twice the next day to ask about the visit and the CCTV. Later that day, three persons who appeared to be advocates came to the salon and said the police wanted the footage, which was copied onto a pen drive. Aggarwal pointed to another statement which denied that any instruction had been given to the advocates to collect it.

The fact that the probe had to be transferred to the CBI, he said, itself shows the clout of Giribala and her son. He also cited a statement saying local police personnel greeted her respectfully at the hospital, though he said he had stronger material.

Aggarwal informed the court that the Supreme Court has issued notice on the transfer petition and stayed the trial court proceedings, observing that bail pleas cannot be held back but must be decided on merits. He said the stay reflects the apex court’s concern that a trial in the State may not be free and fair, and invoked the Amarmani Tripathi principle, which applies in exceptional cases where an accused’s mere presence outside could prevent a fair process.

On the pregnancy, Aggarwal read out the statement of Dr Kakoli Roy, who recorded that Twisha did not want to continue it, and that Samarth’s family, on learning of her attempt, was forcing her to reverse it. He described the mother-in-law’s role in this episode as an “overawing presence” and said it was not that of a passive bystander.

Aggarwal argued that a mother-in-law need not do everything her son did to be part of a common course of conduct. When a daughter-in-law turns to the elders of the family for support and does not find it, he said, she is left alone. He listed the alleged acts: abuse by the husband defended by the mother-in-law, character assassination using past relationships, surveillance, taunts during her father’s ailment, pressure over the pregnancy and wilful silence.

He concluded that, at this stage, the offences carry built-in presumptions, the investigation is pending, and there is non-cooperation and a possibility of tampering. He added that merely calling witnesses liars because they are family members is not enough to secure bail, and urged the High Court to dismiss the application.

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 v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Hearing: October 26, 2026

Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari

Tags: