With forensic and digital extraction reports still awaited and further investigation under way, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused Bail To Giribala Singh in the Twisha Sharma death case.
Jabalpur: With further investigation under Section 193(9) of the BNSS still in progress and important forensic and digital extraction reports awaited, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined, at this stage, to release retired judge Giribala Singh on regular bail in the case over the death of her daughter-in-law Twisha Sharma [Smt. Giribala Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh].
Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari passed the order in Misc. Criminal Case No. 37723 of 2026, after reserving the verdict on hearing the applicant, the CBI and the deceased’s family.
Why bail was refused
“Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the circumstances immediately preceding the death of the deceased, the CCTV footage, the post-mortem reports and, particularly, the fact that further investigation under Section 193(9) of the BNSS is still in progress and important forensic reports and digital extraction reports are awaited, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage.”
The bail application was accordingly rejected. The allegations against Giribala Singh are untested, the Court’s observations are confined to the bail stage, no view has been expressed on the merits of the case, and she is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
How the case reached the High Court
Twisha Sharma, 33, was found dead at her matrimonial home in Bhopal’s Katara Hills on May 12, 2026. Her family alleged persistent harassment and cruelty by her in-laws, and an FIR was registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to dowry death and cruelty, along with the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was later transferred to the CBI on the Supreme Court’s orders.
A Bhopal court granted Giribala Singh anticipatory bail on May 15, but the High Court set that order aside on May 27, and she has since remained in custody. The CBI’s chargesheet dropped the dowry death charge against her and invoked abetment of suicide under Section 108 BNS, while further investigation into the dowry allegations continues. In her bail plea, she denied the dowry harassment allegations and contended that there was no mens rea on her part.
What the case diary showed
Going through the case diary, the Court referred to disputes between the deceased and the applicant, and to WhatsApp conversations between the deceased and her family members in which, according to the prosecution material, she described continuous mental harassment and cruelty. These remain allegations to be tested at trial.
Data extracted from the DVR installed at the applicant’s residence, the Court noted, had been sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory to check the continuity and authenticity of the CCTV footage, and that report is still awaited. It also recorded that the case diary contains material indicating that, after the incident, the applicant allegedly contacted certain influential persons holding high positions, which would require examination during further investigation.
On the plea that there was no mens rea, the Court held:
“At this stage, the contention regarding absence of mens rea cannot be considered in isolation from the other circumstances emerging from the case diary.”
Having regard to the WhatsApp conversations, the CCTV footage, the circumstances in which the deceased was found and the material on the accused persons’ subsequent conduct, the Court said, “the allegations and the respective roles of the accused persons require further investigation and careful examination during trial.”
Why the order matters
The order shows how a pending further investigation can weigh against bail even after a chargesheet has been filed. The Court did not decide whether the applicant is guilty; it held that the defence of no mens rea cannot be judged on its own while key forensic material, including the authenticity of CCTV footage and phone data, is still being examined.
The case is also being watched for the questions it raises about an accused who is a former judicial officer. The Supreme Court is separately seized of a plea to transfer the trial from Bhopal to Delhi, which the CBI supports. The applicant remains free to seek bail again once the investigation reaches a further stage.
Case Title: Smt. Giribala Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [Misc. Criminal Case No. 37723 of 2026; Neutral Citation 2026:MPHC-JBP:86781]
Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari, Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur
Date of Order: October 26, 2026 (as recorded in the order; made available on November 4, 2026)
Appearances: Senior Advocates Surendra Singh and Ajay Gupta with Advocates Shivam Singh, Enosh George Carlo, Aswani Kumar Dubey, Deepak Kumar Raghuwanshi, Kapil Pathak and Jagat Singh for the applicant; Additional Solicitor General Sunil Jain and Deputy Solicitor General Suyash Mohan Guru with Advocates Kartik Dubey and Abhishek Dwivedi for the CBI; Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra with Senior Advocate Siddharth Agrawal and Advocates Vikram Johri, Abhijeet Shinha, Ankur Pandey, Anuj Karnatak, Piyush Kumar Tiwari and Vikram Singh for the respondent; Government Advocate C.M. Tiwari for the State
If you or someone you know is struggling, please reach out to Tele-MANAS on 14416 for free, confidential mental health support.