The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reserved its order on the regular bail application filed by former judicial officer Giribala Singh in connection with the death of her daughter-in-law, Twisha Sharma. Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari reserved the decision on October 26 after hearing arguments from Singh’s defence, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and lawyers representing Twisha’s father. The court has yet to announce whether Singh will be granted bail.

The case concerns the death of 33-year-old Twisha, who was found dead at her matrimonial home in Bhopal on May 12, approximately five months after her marriage. Her family has alleged that she faced cruelty and harassment during the marriage. The investigation was subsequently taken over by the CBI, which arrested Singh and her son, Samarth Singh, in connection with the case.

During the hearing, Singh’s lawyers argued that she had spent around five months in judicial custody and should be allowed to remain out of prison while the proceedings continue. They highlighted her age of 65 and maintained that she was unlikely to abscond or interfere with witnesses.

The defence denied that Singh had subjected Twisha to cruelty or abetted her death. It also questioned the prosecution’s interpretation of WhatsApp conversations, arguing that selected messages should not be viewed separately from the wider exchanges between family members.

Singh’s counsel referred to communications between Twisha and her father, arguing that they indicated that her principal concerns were directed towards her husband. According to the defence, Twisha had described Samarth as aggressive and violent and had sought support from her parents.

The lawyers argued that these communications did not establish Singh’s involvement in the alleged harassment. They also disputed the suggestion that Singh had attempted to influence the investigation, maintaining that her continued detention was not justified by the material presented against her.

The CBI strongly opposed Singh’s release, arguing that the evidence collected during the investigation indicated her alleged involvement in the circumstances preceding Twisha’s death.

Additional Solicitor General Sunil Jain, appearing for the agency, challenged the defence’s portrayal of Singh as a passive observer. He submitted that the investigation had uncovered material that allegedly pointed towards her role in the cruelty faced by Twisha.

The agency also referred to a forensic psychological assessment and behavioural analysis, which reportedly indicated that Twisha had experienced mental cruelty, hopelessness and a lack of support. The prosecution relied on these findings while arguing against bail.

The CBI maintained that the allegations needed to be considered alongside the wider circumstances of the marriage and the material gathered during the investigation. It urged the court not to treat the matter as one involving allegations directed solely at Samarth.

Senior advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, representing Twisha’s father, also opposed the plea. He argued that Singh’s alleged conduct after Twisha’s death raised concerns about the possibility of influencing the investigation or judicial proceedings.

The counsel referred to calls allegedly made by Singh to individuals in the judiciary and civil administration following the incident. The prosecution side argued that these communications required scrutiny given the seriousness of the allegations.

Aggarwal also referred to WhatsApp messages and statements concerning alleged remarks about Twisha’s character and past relationships. He submitted that the material supported the family’s allegations of harassment and emotional cruelty. The defence disputed the suggestion that the calls amounted to an attempt to influence the investigation, maintaining that Singh had been trying to explain her position after allegations emerged against her.

The case has seen changes in the charges as the investigation progressed. An FIR was initially registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) relating to dowry death, cruelty and common intention, along with provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

However, the CBI’s subsequent chargesheet dropped the dowry-death charge against Singh and included a charge of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the BNS. The cruelty charge under Section 85 also remains relevant to the allegations.

Following the change in charges, the High Court directed Singh to amend her regular bail application to reflect the revised provisions before proceeding with arguments on the plea.

Singh had earlier secured anticipatory bail from a trial court in Bhopal. The Madhya Pradesh High Court cancelled that relief on May 27 after the State government and Twisha’s family challenged the decision. Singh subsequently remained in judicial custody.

The Supreme Court has also stayed the trial proceedings while considering a plea by Twisha’s father seeking to transfer the trial outside Madhya Pradesh. The stay on the trial has not prevented the High Court from hearing Singh’s bail application.

With arguments concluded, the Madhya Pradesh High Court will decide whether Singh should remain in custody or be released on bail, potentially subject to conditions. The decision will concern her release pending proceedings and will not determine guilt or innocence. The allegations against Singh and her son remain subject to the legal process, and the prosecution must establish its case in accordance with the law.

The High Court’s forthcoming order is the next key development in the Twisha Sharma death case. Both the accused and the victim’s family will await the decision as the wider legal proceedings continue.