WhatsApp Chats Point To Allegations Against Samarth Singh: Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Twisha Sharma's Husband In Dowry Death Case

A Sessions Court in Bhopal on Monday (May 18) denied anticipatory bail to advocate Samarth Singh in a case concerning the death of his wife Twisha Sharma over allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment, noting that from the FIR and the WhatsApp chats it appeared that the main allegations were against Singh. 

For context, Samarth Singh is booked in an FIR for offences under IPC Sections 80(2) (dowry death), 85 (cruelty) and 3(5) (common intention) and Sections 3 (giving or taking dowry) and 4 (demanding dowry) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 

Additional Sessions Judge Pallavi Dwivedi from the case diary and other material available on record, concluded that the applicant was married to the deceased on December 9, 2025 as per Hindu Customs and that the deceased died within 6 months of her marriage "under unusual circumstances".

The court said that the FIR contains witness statements and from a perusal of the FIR and the WhatsApp chats presented by the prosecution, it appeared that the "main allegations have been made in relation to accused Samarth Singh".

"Whether the accused committed a crime or not can only be determined after a review of the evidence. However, at this stage, given the nature of the crime, the length of time since the deceased's death and marriage, and the fact that the investigation remains incomplete, it does not appear appropriate to grant the accused the benefit of anticipatory bail". 

Per the court order, they had met through a matrimonial website and their marriage was solemnised on December 9, 2025. Before her marriage, she was a film actress, model and had worked as an actress in Telugu and other languages. The applicant claimed that Twisha's "daily behaviour and conduct at her in-laws home" led to the applicant to suspect that she was using marijuana. 

The applicant had claimed that his wife exhibited symptoms of withdrawal from marijuana, including tremors in her hands, irritability, and sudden changes in her behaviour. The applicant also discussed the same with his father-in-law.

Further, on April 17, 2026, the applicant has alleged that his wife learned that she was pregnant and went to the hospital; upon returning from the hospital, she allegedly packed her bags, stating that she wanted to return home to Noida and that she "could no longer pretend to be a housewife".

Thereafter, she left the applicant's home on April 17 but reached her parents' home on April 18 with unexplained delay. Subsequently, Singh has alleged that his wife returned to Bhopal on April 30 and asked him to take her to a gynaecologist. Upon the doctor's advice after obtaining Twisha's consent, she was prescribed MTP pills. Later, another doctor confirmed that the MTP procedure was impossible to reverse, and due to marijuana intoxication, they were advised to abort the pregnancy.

On the day of the incident, the petitioner alleged that his wife was talking to her parents when, around 10:15 pm, her mother called the applicant, saying that Twish was crying and to see what was going on.

When the applicant's mother called Twisha, who did not answer the phone, she went downstairs to check on Twisha. The applicant's mother then went to the terrace and saw Twisha hanging from an exercise elastic bank on an iron rod.

The counsel for the applicant claimed that he was falsely implicated and that there was no strained relationship between the families. He further claimed that ₹7 lakh had been transferred to Twisha's account on May 12 and ₹50,000 to her brother's account.

The counsel for the objector/complainant claimed that the applicant demanded ₹2 Lakh as dowry, which was paid. Further, it was claimed that Twisha was pressured to have an abortion, wherein the applicant and the mother-in-law claimed that they did not know who the father of her child was and thus to save the marraige the deceased went ahead with the abortion.

It was further conteded that the applicant should not be released on bail as his mother is a highly influential person, serving as Chairperson of the District Consumer Court, Bhopal, and is a retired District Judge. 

The court noted that the main allegations have been made against the applicant and therefore deemed it inappropriate to grant him bail at this stage. Therefore, the court rejected Samarth Singh's first anticipatory bail application. 

Case Title: Samarth Singh v State BA 1486/2026

For Applicant: Advocate Enosh George Carlo

For State: Additional Public Prosecutor Rajesh Singh