Twisha Sharma Death Case: CBI Says Dowry Death Probe Still On, MP HC Partly Allows Bail Plea Amendment For S.108 BNS

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday allowed Giribala Singh in Twisha Sharma death case to amend a pending bail plea, but only to the extent of the newly added charge of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (Section 306 of IPC), after the CBI and the accused argued over whether the dowry death allegations had been dropped.

The accused sought the change after the CBI filed its chargesheet. That chargesheet invokes Sections 85, 108 and 3(5) of the BNS (Section 498A, 306 and 34 of IPC), which deal with cruelty by a husband or his relatives, abetment of suicide and acts done with a common intention. Dowry death under Section 80(2) of the BNS (Section 304B of IPC) and offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act do not find a place in it.

Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari asked why the amendment was being opposed, the CBI said it objected only to the claim that those charges had been dropped. “We have not dropped those,” the agency said, adding that the probe was “still going on” with the trial court’s permission under Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The accused argued that the offences were missing from the chargesheet and so were dropped in effect. The court did not agree. Pointing out that only Section 108 had been added, it observed that there was “no dropping”.

Adv Surendra Singh, counsel for the accused, argued that five months had passed and the statements of all close relatives of the deceased had been recorded, yet there was no proof of any dowry demand. “What further investigation do they want? Who are they going to interrogate?” Adv Singh asked, calling the continuing probe “a ploy to defeat the ends of justice”.

He also relied on Article 21, which guarantees the right to an expeditious investigation, and said the 90-day period fixed by law had expired, entitling the accused to claim default bail. “If at the end of two years they say sorry, we have no evidence, what are we to do then? For two years we are going to be behind bars,” Adv Singh told the court. “That is not the policy of the law.”

The CBI countered that the law allows further investigation despite the 90-day limit. It added that once a chargesheet is filed for some offences, an accused cannot claim default bail.

When the court asked what further investigation was still needed, Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, appearing for the complainant, pointed to paragraph 16.62 on page 28 of the chargesheet, which records that the probe into dowry demand and dowry death will continue. Data extracted from the deceased’s iPhone, he said, may reveal incriminating material, other accused or new witnesses, and that report is awaited. Data from a DVR installed at the accused’s house has been sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory in Delhi, and any tampering found will also be investigated.

Aggarwal also called paragraph 4 of the amendment application “factually wrong”, saying it wrongly suggested that the CBI had cleared the accused of dowry death and Dowry Prohibition Act offences. “I have seen,” the court replied.

The court allowed the application only in part. “I am just partly allowing this application, permitting the amendment up to the extent of allegation of Section 108 only. We are not allowing this application in full,” the court said. The new allegation will sit alongside the allegations already in the FIR.

The accused must carry out the amendment within two working days and supply a copy to the opposite parties, who may file a reply or an additional reply. The CBI said no fresh reply was needed. Sr Adv Aggarwal also asked to file additional objections for the victim’s side, as the earlier objections were filed before the chargesheet, and the court allowed this within the time granted.

The matter will be heard next on Wednesday, October 14, 2026 at 2:30 PM.

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 8, 2026 

Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari