Twisha Sharma Dowry Death: MP High Court Reserves Verdict On Pleas Against Giribala Singh's Anticipatory Bail, Allows Impleadment Of CBI

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reserved it's verdict in pleas by the State and parents of Twisha Sharma, challenging the grant of anticipatory bail to Twisha's mother-in-law Giribala Singh in her alleged dowry death case.

A single-judge Bench of Justice Devnarayan Mishra reserved the verdict after hearing all sides.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for Twisha's parents argued that the Bhopal Court order granting anticipatory to the mother-in-law Giribala, also a retired Judge, was premature, passed without her joining the investigation "even for a single day".

Luthra referred to Twisha's WhatsApp chats, from days before the suicide, allegedly reflecting that she was "feeling suffocated" and urged her parents to take her back.

He argued that the Sessions Court wrongly laid emphasis on the fact that the 'main allegations were against the husband'. "This one sentence is taken out of context and becomes the basis for grant of anticipatory bail...FIR is at nascent stage...Is it not premature for the court to consider anticipatory bail at this stage....The court ignored all chats and just picked one sentence out of context and made it basis for grant of anticipatory bail."

He lastly argued that Giribala commands influence and remained in custody of the house where the incident took place for three days.

Advocate Anurag Shrivastav also appearing for the parents also emphasized on the influence that Giribala commands, by submitting that the Police delayed registering an FIR and meanwhile, Giribala proceeded to seek anticipatory bail.

"After 12th (date of suicide) the parents were continuously trying to file FIR but it was not filed until 15th. However, bail application was filed on 14th. Would the police had been able to do a complete investigation for the Bhopal Court to consider the facts and grant bail?" he submitted.

The counsel further submitted that the in-laws are in access of all videography and CCTV footage. "They (in-laws)did not inform the local police immediately, and the morgue was also intimated on 13 May, rather than 12 May...They did not even inform the hospital or call an ambulance. The medical professionals could have brought her body down from the third floor. There could have been a small chance of her survival...they took her body to such far away hospital of AIIMS rather than take her to the hospital nearest to their house," he said.

Advocate General Prashant Singh appearing for the State also opposed grant of anticipatory bail, stating that Bhopal Court took into consideration all defence documents presented by the accused, without giving time to the investigating agency to collect any material after registration of FIR. "So many documents, including her (Twisha's) medicines and her mental conditions, which were not collected by agency, but were considered by the court...It appears as though the trial judge is conducting a mini-trial in a bail application," he said.

Further pointing to Giribala's conduct, the AG said, "The accused was granted anticipatory bail, and she invited a press conference on the 18th, and she made wild allegations against a dead person who cannot counter the allegations."

Moreover, he claimed that she failed to comply with the bail condition requiring her to cooperate with the investigation, by declining to appear before the Police despite three notices being served on her. "She is not turning up; she is free to address the media and widely circulate her own narrative. But she is not cooperating with the agency."

The AG also referred to reasons for death in Twisha's post-mortem report, pointing that an injury was found on her head. "There is a presumption of dowry death....The possibility of hitting her on her head cannot be ruled out...these injuries are ante-mortem."

"The bluish contusions are simple in nature and are three days old. The contusions before the elbow are shortly before death," he further read from the post mortem report.

CBI, which has been handed over the probe, also handed over a written note of submissions to the Court setting out the reasons for Giribala's custodial interrogation.

Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan appearing for Giribala Singh argued that several allegations made by the prosecution and the complainant's side were “contrary to the record” and based on “false statements”.

She submitted that Twisha Sharma was found hanging around 10:30 PM on May 12 and was shifted to AIIMS Bhopal within twenty minutes. Ramakrishnan argued that by the morning of May 13, the police had already taken control of the premises and sealed the house except for one bathroom and a room. “So this question of this whole thing being in our custody is false,” she contended.

Refuting allegations of non-cooperation, the senior counsel said she had remained accessible to the investigating agency throughout and had personally responded to notices sent at “an unearthly hour” around 2:30 AM on May 20–21. “I do not think the State should make false statements before the High Court,” she submitted, while also pointing out that she had handed over her mobile phone to the police and signed the seizure memo herself.

Ramakrishnan further argued that the contention that Giribala Singh could influence the investigation because she was a former judicial officer was “completely unseemly”, especially since she had no access to the sealed areas after May 13.

On the merits of the case, Ramakrishnan argued that anticipatory bail was maintainable even in dowry death cases and that the statutory presumption under dowry death provisions would arise only after foundational facts were established, “and not merely alleged in the FIR”.

Referring to WhatsApp chats relied upon by the prosecution, she submitted that the complainant's side was attributing meanings “where none existed”. According to her, the chats did not contain allegations of cruelty or dowry demand against the mother-in-law and instead reflected that the deceased's grievances were directed against her husband. “She categorically accused her husband,” Ramakrishnan argued.

She also relied on portions of the chats where Twisha's mother allegedly advised her daughter to “take her mother-in-law into confidence”, arguing that such advice would not have been given if Giribala Singh had been making dowry demands.

Defending the trial court's anticipatory bail order, Ramakrishnan said, “There is no law in the world that says that in matters of anticipatory bail, you cannot look at material on record.”

The senior counsel also submitted that the accused family had financially supported Twisha and transferred substantial amounts of money to her. She argued that the material on record suggested marital unhappiness between the deceased and her husband rather than involvement of the mother-in-law. “This does not mean I was involved,” she said.

On allegations concerning pregnancy and medical decisions, Ramakrishnan submitted that Twisha had been staying with her parental family at the relevant time and that the decision regarding medical termination of pregnancy was ultimately taken by her. “So how can you assume interference in her choice,” she argued.

Continuing her submissions, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan referred to the seizure records and reiterated that the investigating officers had remained present with Giribala Singh throughout the relevant period. “Throughout the day, they were with her, and now they say she was not available,” she argued while disputing allegations of non-cooperation.

Relying on WhatsApp exchanges, Ramakrishnan further submitted that even days before the incident, the deceased had sent “an affectionate message” to her mother-in-law. “What I am saying is that there is nothing in the material to show that I may be cruel to her,” she contended.

The senior counsel also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Savitri Agarwal & Ors v State of Maharashtra (2009) while defending the maintainability of anticipatory bail in dowry death cases. Referring to criticism that anticipatory bail had been sought even before registration of the FIR, she remarked: “Is it a sin for me to go and protect my liberty?”

Addressing allegations of influencing the probe, Ramakrishnan submitted that the family had cooperated not only with the State police but also with the CBI after it entered the scene on May 25. “Everyone has gone to town,” she observed while referring to media scrutiny surrounding the case.

Advocate Enosh George, also appearing for Giribala Singh, argued that if the complainant sought cancellation of bail on the basis of post-bail conduct, the proper remedy was before the trial court and not directly before the High Court.

Opposing the anticipatory bail, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the present proceedings were not merely for cancellation of bail but for quashing the anticipatory bail order itself. He submitted that while anticipatory bail before registration of FIR may not be legally barred, the trial court ought to have waited before granting relief in a serious dowry death case involving a “powerful person with substantial power in a judicial institution”.

“The trial court could have waited for a day to consider the facts,” Mehta argued, adding that the grounds relied upon by the court — such as the accused being a 63-year-old woman residing in Bhopal — were too generic. “If these are the grounds, anticipatory bail should be granted in 90% of the cases,” he submitted.

The Solicitor General further alleged that public narratives were being shaped through media interactions and press conferences. “Press conferences are held with confidence. The press conferences create a narrative and influence the witnesses,” he argued.

Mehta also questioned whether evidence at the scene had been tampered with before sealing of the premises. Referring to an email sent by Giribala Singh to the investigating officer, he argued that the respondent, being legally trained, was fully aware that a woman could not ordinarily be interrogated after sunset.

He further submitted that custodial interrogation was necessary for collection of evidence and argued that the deceased had raised grievances against her mother-in-law. Referring to one of the chats dated May 7, Mehta claimed that the mother-in-law had “created a rift” between the deceased and her husband and was “responsible”.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the deceased's family, relied on Supreme Court precedents including Samunder Singh, Idalram, and Mangla to argue that anticipatory bail could be cancelled even after filing of a chargesheet in serious offences.

In rejoinder, Ramakrishnan stated that it was she who had informed the police about the incident on the night it occurred.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court allowed the impleadment of the CBI as respondent no. 3 and reserved orders in the matter.

In the last hearing before the High Court, the counsel appearing for Giribala sought time to file a reply to the additional contentions filed by the parents. The court allowed the request and listed the matter for May 27.