The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the anticipatory bail granted to retired district judge Giribala Singh in the Twisha Sharma death case, holding that the trial court failed to consider “all these facts” including witness statements, WhatsApp chats, allegations of pressure to abort pregnancy and the postmortem findings showing multiple ante-mortem injuries on the 33-year-old former model and actor.
Justice Devnarayan Mishra observed that the l in the case diary while granting protection from arrest to Giribala Singh, the mother-in-law of deceased Twisha Sharma and a retired judicial officer from .
“From the WhatsApp chats also, it cannot be said that the allegations are only against Samarth Singh but the trial Court did not consider all these facts,” the High Court said while setting aside the May 15 anticipatory bail order passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.
The case relates to the death of Twisha Sharma, a former Miss , actor and MBA graduate originally from Noida, who was found hanging at her matrimonial home in Bagmugalia, Bhopal, on May 12, barely five months after marrying lawyer Samarth Singh.
The court attached particular significance to the postmortem findings. “As per postmortem report, the death was due to antemortem hanging by ligature but from the postmortem, it is also clear that six other injuries were found in the body of the deceased in which four injuries were on the left arm, one in ring finger and one is on the head and that was antemortem,” the order states.
The High Court further noted that the medical query report ruled out the defence claim that the injuries may have occurred while bringing down the body or transporting it to hospital. “From the query report, it is also clear that these injuries were not caused due to taking out the body from the ligature or carrying out to the hospital,” the court recorded.
The order also repeatedly references allegations surrounding Twisha’s pregnancy and abortion. “It is also [an] admitted fact that the deceased got the pregnancy and that was terminated within two months,” the court observed, noting that the from the husband and mother-in-law while the defence argued the deceased had herself wanted the termination.
During arguments, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Twisha’s father, relied heavily on WhatsApp conversations allegedly sent by the deceased before her death. According to the order, Twisha had allegedly told relatives that her husband and in-laws believed she was “addicted to drugs”, did not allow her “to live happily nor permitting her to cry”, and that she was “badly stuck”.
The court order records that Twisha had allegedly told her family that her husband “always doubted her regarding the child in her womb and stated that she will be permitted to live in her matrimonial home after terminating her pregnancy.” The High Court also noted submissions that Twisha had asked family members “to come and carry her to parental house.”
The prosecution and complainant family also attacked the manner in which anticipatory bail had been granted at the initial stage of investigation. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued before the court that “the manner in which anticipatory bail was obtained, creates doubt that the trial Court did not consider the aspect relevant for granting anticipatory bail.”
The High Court order records allegations that after obtaining anticipatory bail, Giribala Singh had “made a press conference on 18.05.2026 and tried to malign the image of the deceased alleging different types of allegations.”
The state and CBI also argued that crucial evidence had already been recovered on the first day of investigation. According to the defence submissions recorded by the court, police seized “the ligature, laptop keyboard, mobile phone of Apple Company” on May 13, while the deceased’s mobile phone was recovered from her husband and the DVR was seized later that evening.
The High Court also rejected one of the major findings relied upon by the trial court — financial transfers made by the accused to the deceased weakened the dowry harassment allegations. Examining the dates of the transfers, the court said the money had been transferred months before Twisha’s death and “it cannot be said that the respondent has transferred much money in the account of the victim, by that, it could be presumed that there was no demand of dowry.”
