Actress Twisha’s husband detained by Jabalpur Police:Reached court to surrender; AIIMS Delhi team to conduct fresh post-mortem, CBI probe approved

Actress-model Twisha Sharma’s husband and accused, Samarth Singh, was taken into custody by Jabalpur Police on Friday evening after he arrived at the district court to surrender. Earlier, he had withdrawn his anticipatory bail plea before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Advocate Anurag Shrivastava, representing Twisha’s father Navnidhi Sharma, alleged that Samarth was sitting inside Courtroom No. 32, the court of the District and Sessions Judge, wearing a mask. He questioned under what authority Samarth had been allowed to remain inside the courtroom. Fresh post-mortem to be conducted The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered a fresh post-mortem of Twisha Sharma’s body. The court directed that a team led by the Director of AIIMS Delhi conduct the autopsy at AIIMS Bhopal. The entire procedure will be videographed, and police have been instructed to preserve the body until the examination is completed. Meanwhile, the Madhya Pradesh government has sent a proposal to the Centre seeking a CBI investigation into the case. The assurance was given by Chief Minister Dr. Mohan Yadav when Twisha’s father, Navnidhi Sharma, met him along with retired servicemen on May 20. Government seeks cancellation of retired judge’s bail The state government has also approached the High Court seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Twisha’s mother-in-law and retired judge, Giribala Singh. The matter was scheduled to be heard before Justice Avanindra Singh on Friday, but the court referred it to a division bench. Samarth Singh had arrived at the Jabalpur District Court to surrender, but police took him into custody before the process could proceed. Samarth’s lawyer: No information on surrender details Advocate Jaideep Kaurav said four matters connected to the Twisha case were listed together before the High Court. One was Samarth’s anticipatory bail application, another was Twisha’s father’s petition seeking a second post-mortem, while two others challenged the bail granted to Giribala Singh. The court issued notices and sought replies from the concerned parties. The next hearing has been scheduled for May 25 at 2:30 pm. Kaurav said Samarth’s anticipatory bail plea was withdrawn because he wished to surrender, but added that he had no information about when and where the surrender would take place. Advocate General says three categories of matters were placed before the High Court Advocate General Prashant Singh said three categories of matters were placed before the High Court. One concerned the state government’s application seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Giribala Singh by a Bhopal district court. Appearing for the state, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the conditional anticipatory bail was affecting the prosecution’s ability to obtain necessary cooperation and could influence evidence. The court directed the government to ensure notices are served on all concerned parties. Giribala leaves home; lawyer reacts angrily to media questions Retired judge Giribala Singh stepped out of her residence accompanied by her lawyer, who helped her into a car. As journalists began asking questions, Giribala did not respond and quietly got into the vehicle. As the car moved forward, the lawyer’s foot reportedly came under one of the wheels. He struck the bonnet to stop the vehicle and then told the media, “Do you want to kill us?” When reporters continued questioning him, the lawyer appeared irritated and asked, “Is there any law that requires us to answer your questions?” He then pushed aside journalists’ microphones, entered the car and said the media’s behaviour was inappropriate. When asked where they were going, he closed the window and the vehicle drove away. Twisha’s father alleges Samarth is influencing the case Twisha’s family has opposed Samarth’s bail plea. Her father, Navnidhi Sharma, alleged that Samarth had worked as a legal adviser to the Madhya Pradesh government from July 2023 to August 2025 and was influencing the case while absconding. Navnidhi Sharma has also written to Police Commissioner Sanjay Singh demanding the removal of Katara Hills police station in-charge Sunil Dubey. Minus 4 degrees is sufficient to preserve a body, says father Navnidhi Sharma said that even in the United States, bodies are not preserved at minus 80 degrees Celsius. According to him, minus 4 degrees Celsius is sufficient for preservation. He alleged that police were creating unnecessary panic in an attempt to pressure the family into taking possession of the body quickly. He maintained that the family would continue its fight for a second post-mortem for as long as necessary. On May 20, police had urged Twisha’s father to take custody of the body and proceed with its final rites. Family alleges they were forced to sign body handover documents Navnidhi Sharma claimed that family members were forced to sign documents acknowledging receipt of the body, even though they had not actually taken possession of it. He also alleged delays in the registration of the FIR, claiming police informed them that a case would only be registered after the family accepted custody of the body. According to Sharma, police have acted as a party to the dispute from the very beginning, but the family will not withdraw its demands. On May 20, police had urged Twisha’s father to take custody of the body. Uncle alleges evidence is being destroyed Twisha’s uncle, Lokesh Sharma, alleged that both the police and the judiciary were creating confusion for the family. He said Police Commissioner Sanjay Singh had initially agreed to a second post-mortem but later stated that the issue was beyond his jurisdiction and advised the family to approach the court. According to Lokesh Sharma, when the family approached the court, they were again told that the matter did not fall within its jurisdiction. He alleged that the administration was siding with retired judge Giribala Singh. He further claimed that the crime scene had still not been sealed and that the house remained open, allowing evidence to be destroyed. Police Commissioner says investigation is being conducted fairly Responding to the allegations, Police Commissioner Sanjay Kumar said the investigation was being carried out in a completely impartial manner and every aspect of the case was being examined thoroughly. He said police had issued three notices to retired judge Giribala Singh, but she had neither responded nor appeared to record her statement. Police have approached the High Court regarding Samarth Singh’s anticipatory bail and had been continuing efforts to arrest him. Teams were conducting raids at possible locations, and if necessary, legal proceedings for attachment of property would also be initiated. Samarth’s lawyer says family relations were cordial Samarth Singh’s lawyer, Mrigendra Singh, said Twisha was the only daughter-in-law of the family and lived with her husband and mother-in-law. He maintained that relations among them were cordial. He said minor disagreements are common in every new marriage, especially when individuals come from different cultures and backgrounds, and that adjustment takes time. According to him, Twisha had visited her parental home about five times during her four-and-a-half-month marriage. High-voltage drama at Jabalpur District Court A high-voltage scene unfolded at the Jabalpur District Court on Friday evening after Samarth Singh arrived with his associates to surrender. Media personnel attempted to question him, but he remained silent, and the situation remained tense for nearly an hour. Following reports of commotion, police teams from six police stations reached the court complex. After being detained, Samarth was reportedly kept inside a lawyers’ chamber. Advocate Anurag Shrivastava, representing Twisha’s father Navnidhi Sharma, alleged that despite a lookout notice and a ₹30,000 reward being declared against Samarth, he had been moving freely without police action. He further claimed that Samarth was sitting inside Courtroom No. 32, the court of the District and Sessions Judge, wearing a mask, and questioned under what authority he had been allowed to remain there. Shrivastava also argued that Samarth had no legal right to surrender in Jabalpur and should instead have surrendered before the investigating officer or the trial court. Rejecting claims that Samarth’s life was under threat, he alleged that such arguments were being used to obtain legal relief. According to him, a disturbance broke out when journalists attempted to question Samarth inside the court premises.