Giribala Singh’s Counsel Says CBI Found No Dowry Death, Argues No Abetment

Senior Advocate Surendra Singh, appearing for Giribala Singh, told the Madhya Pradesh High Court that there is “not a shred of evidence” to show that she instigated or assisted her daughter-in-law, Twisha Sharma, in ending her life, and that the case against her rests on ordinary family disagreements.

Arguing on her bail application before the bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari, he submitted that the marriage of Twisha and Giribala’s son, Samarth Singh, lasted only five months, and that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) itself had listed the events of those months in its final report.

Tracing the case history, Singh told the court that local police first registered offences under Sections 80 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (corresponding to Section 304B and 498A IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The CBI later took over the probe and registered its own FIR on May 25. Despite citing 90 witnesses in its charge sheet, he said, the agency found no evidence of a dowry death.

He added that the charge sheet was filed only under Sections 108 and 85 of the BNS (corresponding to Sections 306 and 498A IPC), which correspond to abetment of suicide and cruelty by a husband or his relatives under the old Indian Penal Code. The magistrate took cognisance of only these offences, and no protest petition was filed by the objector side.

Singh also questioned the claims made by Twisha’s relatives. He argued that after her death, they made a “concerted effort” to turn the case into one of murder, and relied on the statements of the investigating officer and the AIIMS Bhopal doctor who led the post-mortem team to show that the family pressed the police to register an FIR and tried to approach the doctor. Both post-mortem reports, he said, pointed to a suicidal death with no sign of assault.

On the allegations of cruelty, he submitted that the disputes were between husband and wife, and that Twisha’s complaints, including her last messages and calls, were directed at Samarth and not at Giribala. “We are not here to defend Samarth,” he told the court. “We are here to see whether there is a prima facie case against Giribala.”

Singh also referred to statements of doctors who treated Twisha in early May. According to him, they recorded that she was uncertain about continuing an unplanned pregnancy, while both Samarth and Giribala wanted the child. He asked “which mother-in-law would be happy” about the decision to end the pregnancy, adding that anger or silence in such circumstances is a natural human reaction and cannot amount to abetment.

On allegations that Giribala had called Twisha a murderer after she took medicines to end the pregnancy, Singh described it as a remote outburst made on May 7, five days before Twisha’s death. Relying on a Supreme Court ruling, he argued that words uttered in anger, without intending their consequences, cannot be treated as instigation.

Singh cited recent Supreme Court judgments, including Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh, to stress that a conviction for abetment of suicide needs clear mens rea, or guilty intention, and that “mere harassment” is not enough. The prosecution, he said, must show a direct act that left the deceased with no other option but to end her life.

Here, he argued, Twisha had many options. She was a former Miss Pune title winner with acting experience and an MBA, and had a job offer in Delhi. He said she had left the matrimonial home on her own earlier, booked a ticket to Nasirabad in Rajasthan after her father sent money, and was never confined.

Singh further relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that bail should ordinarily be granted in cases of this nature unless there is a real risk of misuse of liberty. Responding to the court’s query on why her earlier anticipatory bail was cancelled, he said the dowry death provision was then part of the case, but is no longer there. Refusing bail on speculation about what charges may be added, he argued, would be unjustified.

Singh took the court through the CBI final report and witness statements to support these points. The hearing is to continue after the lunch break.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has also stayed the trial before the Bhopal Sessions Court on a plea seeking its transfer to Delhi, though the bail proceedings before the High Court are allowed to continue.

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: