The former district judge, mother-in-law of the deceased, is seeking regular bail in a case the Supreme Court handed to the CBI. Her plea disputes the dowry allegations and cites the age and her cooperation with the investigation. The High Court has given the agency a week to respond. The allegations are untested and no charge has been proved.
Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted the Central Bureau of Investigation a week to file its reply to the regular bail application of former district judge Giribala Singh in the case concerning the death of her daughter-in-law, Twisha Sharma [Giribala Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh].
Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari allowed the request made by counsel for the CBI and listed the matter for September 21.
The case
Twisha Sharma, a 33-year-old woman, was found dead at her matrimonial home in Bhopal on May 12, 2026. An FIR was registered under Sections 80(2), 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, covering dowry death, cruelty and acts done in furtherance of common intention, together with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which penalise the giving or taking of dowry and the demanding of dowry.
The investigation was transferred to the CBI following the intervention of the Supreme Court, which took up the matter and requested the media to avoid publishing statements in it. The accused, the deceased’s husband Samarth Singh and his mother Giribala Singh, were taken into CBI custody in late May and subsequently remanded to judicial custody, which was extended on more than one occasion.
How the bail question reached this stage
The bail history in the matter has been contested at every step. Giribala Singh was initially granted anticipatory bail by the trial court in May, on the footing that the FIR and the WhatsApp chats relied upon were directed against her son rather than her. The State and the deceased’s parents challenged that order before the High Court, which set aside the anticipatory bail later the same month, after which she was arrested.
Her co-accused son was refused anticipatory bail by the trial court, and after approaching the High Court withdrew that petition with liberty to surrender.
What the bail plea argues
According to the account of her petition, Giribala Singh contends that the dowry allegations are false, pointing to what she says is an absence of any transaction showing money obtained from the deceased’s parents, and asserting that her son had instead transferred a sum of Rs 7.5 lakh into the deceased’s account. The plea is also stated to rely on statements attributed to doctors said to indicate that the deceased had been suffering from depression.
On the investigation, the petition asserts that she provided voice samples over some three hours in July 2026, disputing any suggestion of non-cooperation. It further states that she is 64 years old and a member of the higher judiciary who is no longer required for the purpose of the investigation, and on that basis seeks release.
These are the assertions of the bail petitioner and have not been tested. The deceased’s father has filed an application opposing the grant of regular bail. The CBI is yet to file its reply, which is the very step the present order provides for.
ALSO READ: Twisha Sharma Death: Supreme Court Steps In, Registers Suo Motu Case
Why it matters
The procedural posture is routine, but the case around it is not. A young woman is dead, a second post-mortem was ordered, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of intervening and moving the investigation to the CBI, and one of the accused is a former member of the district judiciary. Each of those features draws attention, and each is a reason for a news outlet to report the matter with particular restraint rather than less.
What is before the High Court now is narrow: whether the former judge should be released on regular bail while the CBI’s investigation and any trial proceed. That question will turn on the material the agency places on record, the role attributed to her as distinct from her son, and the usual considerations of the gravity of the offence, the risk of tampering and the stage of the proceedings. The order of September 15 decides none of that. It simply gives the CBI the week it asked for to respond.
Two things bear emphasis for readers following the matter. The competing accounts, of a dowry death on one side and of a death linked to depression on the other, are exactly what the investigation and, if it comes to it, the trial exist to resolve; neither has been established, and the second post-mortem and the CBI’s findings will bear on which stands. And the Supreme Court’s own request that statements in the case not be amplified in the media is a reminder that reporting here should stay with what a court has recorded, not with the allegations either side is pressing.
Case Title: Giribala Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [MCC No. 37723 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari, High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Order: September 15, 2026 | Next Listed: September 21, 2026
Status: CBI granted a week to reply to the regular bail application. Allegations untested; no charge established. The deceased’s father opposes bail.
This report concerns a death in circumstances that remain under investigation. If you or someone you know is struggling, help is available. The Tele-MANAS national mental health helpline can be reached at 14416 or 1-800-891-4416, round the clock, in multiple languages.