What the CBI has put before the Supreme Court on the Twisha Sharma trial transfer is a counter-affidavit that supports moving the case to Delhi, alleging that accused former judge Giribala Singh and her son Samarth Singh are influential in Bhopal and may sway the trial and intimidate witnesses. The allegations are untested.
New Delhi: In a counter-affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on October 29, the Central Bureau of Investigation has supported the plea of Twisha Sharma’s father to move the trial over her death from a Bhopal sessions court to a court in Delhi, stating that the two accused are influential persons in the district and there is every likelihood they will influence the proceedings [Navnidhi Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation].
The transfer petition came up on Friday, October 30, before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, which adjourned it to a later date for further hearing. Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, with Advocate-on-Record Abhijeet Sinha, appeared for the petitioner.
The CBI’s case for moving the trial
On the apprehension of influence, the affidavit says:
“It is further submitted that respondent No.2 being a retired District Judge from District Court, Bhopal may influence the trial proceedings and intimidate the witnesses of the case.”
The affidavit points out that Giribala Singh was serving as President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, when the incident took place, and alleges that she interfered with the investigation first conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Police.
According to the CBI, its probe found that Giribala Singh called a technician and obtained copies of CCTV footage for the relevant period. The agency further alleges that on May 13, 2026 she contacted the owner of a beauty parlour, asked about Twisha’s visit there on May 12, and sent persons to collect the relevant CCTV footage.
“The accused person i.e. respondent No. 2 has misused her position and there are series of incidences which clearly reflect her unwarranted interference in the investigation conducted by the State Police.”
The affidavit also records that Giribala Singh was granted anticipatory bail on May 13, 2026, after the inquest proceedings under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and that her later bail plea was dismissed by the First Additional District Judge, Bhopal, on July 25, 2026. In her bail proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, she has denied abetting Twisha’s death.
These are the CBI’s allegations in a pending case. They have not been tested at trial, the Supreme Court has expressed no view on the merits, and both accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
The transfer plea and the chargesheet
Twisha’s father, Navnidhi Sharma, has sought transfer of the trial pending before the Tenth District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal. On the previous date, the Supreme Court stayed the trial in Bhopal and sought the responses of the CBI and the accused.
The CBI filed its chargesheet on August 17, 2026 against former District Judge Giribala Singh and her son Samarth Singh, a practising advocate in Bhopal, under Sections 85 (cruelty), 108 (abetment of suicide) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The dowry-related sections invoked in the FIR were dropped in the chargesheet, but the agency has said further investigation into the dowry death allegations and other aspects is continuing.
What the Bench will weigh next
The Supreme Court can move a criminal case from one State to another under Section 446 of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 406 of the old Code, when a fair and impartial trial is unlikely where it is pending. Courts usually look for a reasonable apprehension, not a mere allegation, that witnesses may be intimidated or the process influenced.
Support from the prosecuting agency itself, citing the accused’s past judicial office and local standing, is a significant input for the Bench. Whether it is enough to shift the trial to Delhi is a question the Court will decide on the next date, after hearing the accused.
Case Title: Navnidhi Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation [Diary No. 58446 of 2026]
Bench: Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: October 30, 2026 (CBI counter-affidavit filed October 29, 2026)
Appearances: Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal with Advocate-on-Record Abhijeet Sinha for the petitioner
If you or someone you know is struggling, please reach out to Tele-MANAS, the national mental health helpline, at 14416 (toll-free, 24×7).