MP High Court: Defers Giribala Singh Bail Plea, Grants CBI Week

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court has postponed the bail hearing for former judge Giribala Singh in the Twisha Sharma death case.
• The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was granted a week to submit its detailed response and case diary to the court.
• Singh, accused under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 for dowry death, will remain in judicial custody until the next hearing.
• A special CBI court previously denied her bail, citing her institutional influence as a former judge could compromise the investigation.
• The CBI has alleged attempts by Singh to influence the probe and has filed a 636-page charge sheet against her and her son.

The special CBI court had previously highlighted that Singh's extensive career as a District and Sessions Judge endowed her with institutional influence, posing a "real, not remote" possibility of witness or evidence tampering.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has postponed the bail application of former district judge Giribala Singh, an accused in the Twisha Sharma death case. During a hearing on September 15, 2026, a single bench presided over by Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari granted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) a week to submit its comprehensive response to the court. This decision means that Giribala Singh will remain in judicial custody until the matter is taken up again next week.

Senior advocate Surendra Singh, representing Giribala Singh, argued for her release, citing her advanced age and health condition. The defense contended that there was no substantial evidence on record to link her directly to the alleged offense, nor to suggest she instigated or abetted Twisha Sharma to die by suicide. Furthermore, her counsel assured the court of her full cooperation with the ongoing investigation and compliance with any conditions imposed should the Giribala Singh bail application be granted.

The CBI, which took over the probe following a suo motu intervention by the Supreme Court, requested additional time to present its arguments. The agency informed the court of its intention to place the entire case diary before the bench, noting that it had already filed a written objection to the bail plea. Advocate Anurag Panday, representing Twisha Sharma's family, emphasized that the court should only proceed with the bail plea after a thorough examination of the CBI's submissions.

The case revolves around the death of model-actor Twisha Sharma, who was found deceased at her matrimonial residence in Bhopal's Katara Hills area on May 12. This tragic event occurred barely five months after her marriage to advocate Samarth Singh, who is Giribala Singh's son. Twisha's family, led by her brother Major Harshit Sharma of the Indian Army, alleged foul play, claiming she endured continuous harassment over a dowry demand of approximately two lakh rupees and faced restrictions on her financial autonomy.

An FIR was lodged two days after Twisha's death, naming both Samarth and Giribala Singh. Samarth Singh was subsequently arrested in Jabalpur on May 22, following a ten-day period during which he evaded capture. The Supreme Court intervened suo motu, expressing concerns that the alleged involvement of a judicial officer could erode public confidence in the justice system, and consequently transferred the investigation to the CBI. Both Giribala Singh and Samarth Singh have been in custody since June 2, facing charges of dowry death under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The CBI later filed a comprehensive 636-page charge sheet against them in August.

This current bail plea before the Madhya Pradesh High Court follows a previous rejection by a special CBI court in Bhopal last month. That court had denied Giribala Singh's regular bail application, concurring with the prosecution that the investigation was at a sensitive juncture and her release could potentially compromise its integrity. A key factor in the special CBI court's decision was its observation that Singh's decades of experience as a District and Sessions Judge afforded her significant institutional influence, creating a "real, not remote" possibility of interference with witnesses or evidence.

In opposing bail, the CBI had presented allegations that Giribala Singh attempted to influence the probe by contacting a CCTV technician and a salon operator, and by dispatching a representative to secure CCTV footage. The agency also highlighted her refusal to provide a voice sample, substantiating its claims with call records, WhatsApp chats, and witness statements already gathered. The defense had also sought bail on humanitarian grounds before the special court, citing Singh's health issues in custody, her responsibility to care for her nearly hundred-year-old mother, and the need to perform rituals connected with Twisha's death. It was further argued that her financial security, stemming from a regular pension and a war widow's pension, made a dowry demand improbable. However, the court concluded that none of these grounds outweighed the gravity of the allegations.

The deferral of the Giribala Singh bail application by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, with Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari presiding, underscores the stringent scrutiny applied in high-profile cases, particularly those involving dowry death under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court's decision to grant the Twisha Sharma death case CBI response time reflects a cautious approach, prioritizing a thorough review of the investigative agency's submissions before making a determination on liberty.

This case, Smt. Giribala Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, highlights the judiciary's emphasis on preventing potential interference with ongoing investigations, especially when the accused holds a position of past institutional authority. The detailed objections and evidence presented by the CBI, coupled with the court's willingness to allow ample time for their consideration, signal a rigorous judicial process for bail applications in sensitive matters.

Lawyers handling bail applications, particularly for influential clients or in high-profile dowry death cases under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, should note the stringent scrutiny applied by courts, the emphasis on potential interference with investigation, and the detailed responses expected from prosecuting agencies like the CBI. This case illustrates the cautious approach to bail where the accused holds institutional influence.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law