The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has rejected the regular bail application of retired judge Giribala Singh, who is currently facing charges related to the dowry death of her daughter-in-law, Twisha Sharma. Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari, presiding over the proceedings at the Jabalpur bench, ruled that the gravity of the accusations and the ongoing nature of the investigation, which involves critical forensic and digital evidence, precluded any immediate relief for the applicant.

The case, registered at the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Special Crime Unit in New Delhi, involves allegations under Sections 80(2), 85, 108, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside the Dowry Prohibition Act. Giribala Singh has remained in judicial custody since June 2, 2026, following the unnatural death of the 33-year-old deceased at her matrimonial residence in Bhopal on May 12, 2026.

In denying the bail request, the court highlighted the necessity of awaiting comprehensive forensic reports to clarify the sequence of events. Justice Nirankari observed, "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."

Disputes Surrounding Pregnancy and Matrimonial Conduct

The prosecution’s narrative, substantiated by case diary entries and digital logs, suggests a volatile matrimonial environment characterized by mental and psychological harassment. According to the investigation, the deceased and her husband, Samarth Singh, initially met through an online dating platform in 2025. However, following their marriage in December 2025, relationships deteriorated significantly. Records indicate that the deceased discovered she was pregnant in April 2026, but after concerns regarding her husband's alleged drug addiction and the resulting stress, she opted for the medical termination of pregnancy.

Disputes allegedly intensified following this termination, with the deceased informing her family members that she was being subjected to constant surveillance and derogatory questioning by the accused. WhatsApp exchanges between the deceased and her relatives, provided as evidence, depict a trajectory of increasing isolation and distress. In one such conversation with her sister-in-law on May 9, the deceased expressed that she felt suffocated in her relationship and mentioned the husband had questioned the paternity of the unborn child, a claim she found deeply distressing.

Addressing the defence’s argument regarding the lack of direct criminal intent, the court emphasized that such determinations could not be made prematurely. Justice Nirankari remarked, "The question of mens rea cannot be examined in isolation at this stage and requires consideration in the light of the entire material collected during investigation."

Pending Forensic Evidence and Judicial Scrutiny

A critical component of the ongoing probe involves the integrity of digital evidence. The investigating agency is currently awaiting the forensic extraction report from the primary iPhone belonging to the deceased, which is expected to yield further insights into the extent of harassment and potential involvement of other parties. Furthermore, the Digital Video Recorder (DVR) footage recovered from the residence of the applicant has been sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory in New Delhi to verify the continuity and authenticity of the recordings.

The court also scrutinized CCTV footage captured on the night of the incident, which depicted the applicant and her son moving toward the terrace, followed later by the discovery of the deceased. Both the initial post-mortem conducted at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Bhopal and a subsequent examination by a medical board established the cause of death as asphyxia resulting from antemortem hanging.

The applicant’s counsel had contended that she was innocent, citing her long tenure in the judiciary and her willingness to cooperate with investigations, including the provision of voice samples. The defence also argued that financial transactions into the deceased’s bank account contradicted claims of dowry demands. However, the prosecution and the objector countered that these financial moves were merely tactical, and that the applicant had attempted to leverage her influence following the tragedy to interfere with the legal process.

As the investigation under Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) continues, the court noted that the circumstantial evidence, including calls made by the deceased to her family just hours before her death and the subsequent behavior of the accused, warranted a deeper judicial review. The bail application, having been filed as a first request, was consequently rejected by the High Court, ensuring that the applicant remains in custody while the CBI completes its forensic examinations and consolidates the case for trial. The matter remains pending as authorities finalize reports that will ultimately determine the scope of charges against all involved parties.