Retired judge Giribala’s bail cancelled on 9 grounds:6 injuries, WhatsApp chats; CCTV evidence lead to arrest in 17 hours

In the Bhopal actress-model Twisha Sharma death case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the accused mother-in-law, retired judge Giribala Singh. The court’s decision included several observations that raised concerns over the conduct of the investigation. A single-judge bench of Justice Dev Narayan Mishra noted in its order that the trial court had granted bail without properly considering the seriousness of the allegations, witness statements, and available electronic evidence. The court further observed that the investigation was still at a preliminary stage, and there was a possibility that the accused could influence it. Taking into account the nature of injuries, witness statements, electronic evidence, and the ongoing stage of investigation, the High Court held that the anticipatory bail granted on May 15 could not be sustained. Following the order, the Sessions Court in Bhopal’s decision was set aside. The High Court issued its ruling around 1 am on Wednesday night. Within nine hours of the order, a CBI team reached Giribala Singh’s residence in Katara Hills. She was subsequently arrested by the CBI about 17 hours after the High Court’s decision. Now let’s understand on what grounds High Court cancelled the bail 1. Trial court ignored crucial evidence The High Court said that the lower court did not adequately consider the facts present in the case diary and the statements of witnesses. The Trial Court primarily relied on the defense documents and concluded that the deceased’s complaint was only against her husband, whereas the facts on record indicate something else. 2. Six injuries found in postmortem became major basis The High Court considered the postmortem report to be extremely important. The court said that Twisha’s death occurred by hanging, but there were also six other antemortem injuries on the body. Of these, four injuries were found on the left hand, one on the finger, and one on the head. The AIIMS query report also clarified that these injuries were not sustained while removing the body from the noose or during transportation to the hospital. The High Court acknowledged that the trial court had overlooked the seriousness of this aspect. 3. WhatsApp chats changed direction of case Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing on behalf of the deceased’s father, presented WhatsApp chats in court. In these chats, Twisha had allegedly told her family that her husband and in-laws considered her a “drug addict.” She was not even allowed to cry. The husband suspected the child growing in her womb. It was said that she would be kept in the house only after an abortion. Therefore, she wanted to return to her maternal home. The High Court said that considering the WhatsApp chats merely as allegations against the husband was wrong. Prima facie, the role of the mother-in-law also emerges from the record. 4. Serious remarks regarding abortion The court acknowledged that it is an undisputed fact that Twisha was pregnant and the pregnancy terminated within two months. The prosecution alleged that the husband and mother-in-law created pressure for abortion by doubting her character. The Advocate General informed the court that according to the deceased’s family, the accused party used to say that the child belonged to someone else and Twisha would be allowed to stay in the house only after the abortion. 5. High Court also accepted allegations of non-cooperation in Investigation The High Court also noted that even after receiving anticipatory bail, the accused did not appear before the investigating agency. According to the record, notices were issued on May 13 and 14, and even after bail, notices were given on May 20, 21, and 23, but Giribala Singh did not appear before the investigating agency. The court held that non-cooperation with the investigating agency cannot be overlooked. 6. Allegation of tampering with CCTV footage For the first time in the case, the allegation was presented in detail before the court that the accused party tampered with the CCTV footage. The CBI stated that the police had seized the DVR on May 13, yet the accused party had the footage of the incident. Selected clips were leaked on social media, allegedly done with the intention of influencing evidence. 7. Questions raised about presence of two relatives during post-mortem The CBI informed the court that the accused’s sister Dr. Rajbala Singh Bhadauria and Dr. Yashveer JK were present during the post-mortem. Both were stated to be senior doctors from Bhopal. The mystery surrounding Twisha Sharma’s death, the possible involvement of influential accused, and non-cooperation during the ongoing investigation indicates that the case is still in its initial stage. Therefore, there will be a need to interrogate Giribala Singh in custody. 8. Sending money to Twisha’s account does not dismiss the demand for dowry The Advocate General informed the court that expensive dowry and gifts were given at the wedding, despite which the accused party claimed that the dowry was not up to their standard. Pressure was being created to transfer Twisha’s shares in their name. The trial court had granted relief on the basis that the accused party used to send money to the deceased’s account, but the High Court said that this cannot lead to the conclusion that there was no dowry demand. 9. Strict remarks by court despite being a retired judge The petitioner’s side informed the court that Giribala Singh is a retired judicial officer and has received training in cyber crime, cyber forensics and crime scene management. It was alleged that this very expertise was purportedly used to influence the crime scene. However, the High Court did not give a final conclusion on this, but considered it a serious circumstance during the investigation. The High Court, citing several Supreme Court judgments, stated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief, and courts should exercise caution in serious cases. If the Trial Court overlooks significant facts, the High Court can intervene.