The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on pleas filed by the state government and the parents of deceased actor-model Twisha Sharma challenging the anticipatory bail granted to her mother-in-law, retired judge Giribala Singh, in the alleged dowry death case.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Devnarayan Mishra reserved its decision after hearing extensive submissions from all sides, including the prosecution, the complainant family, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the defence.
During the hearing, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Twisha Sharma’s parents, argued that the Bhopal district court had prematurely granted anticipatory bail to Giribala Singh without requiring her to join the investigation “even for a single day”.
Referring to WhatsApp chats purportedly exchanged by Twisha Sharma days before her death, Luthra submitted that the messages reflected that the deceased was “feeling suffocated” and had urged her parents to take her back from her matrimonial home.
He contended that the trial court had wrongly relied on one sentence in the FIR suggesting that the “main allegations were against the husband” while ignoring the overall allegations and material placed on record.
Advocate General Prashant Singh, appearing for the Madhya Pradesh Police, also opposed the grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the trial court had conducted a “mini-trial” at the stage of anticipatory bail.
“So many documents, including her medicines and her mental condition, which were not collected by the agency, were considered by the court. It appears as though the trial judge is conducting a mini-trial in a bail application,” the Advocate General submitted.
It was further alleged that Giribala Singh had failed to cooperate with the investigation despite notices being issued to her. “She is not turning up. She is free to address the media and widely circulate her own narrative, but she is not cooperating with the probe agency,” the Advocate General argued.
Referring to the post-mortem findings, the prosecution also pointed to injuries allegedly found on Twisha Sharma’s body and submitted that the “possibility of hitting her on her head cannot be ruled out”.
The CBI, which has now taken over the probe, also submitted written grounds before the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking custodial interrogation of Giribala Singh.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that although anticipatory bail before registration of an FIR may not be legally barred, the trial court ought to have exercised restraint considering the seriousness of the allegations and the status of the accused as a former judicial officer.
“The trial court could have waited for a day to consider the facts,” SG Mehta submitted, adding that generic considerations such as age and residence could not by themselves justify anticipatory bail in a serious dowry death case.
He also argued that media interactions and press conferences held after grant of anticipatory bail were creating a public narrative capable of influencing witnesses and the ongoing investigation.
Opposing the pleas, senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for Giribala Singh, argued that several allegations made by the prosecution and the complainant’s family were “contrary to the record” and based on “false statements”.
Refuting allegations of non-cooperation, she argued that Giribala Singh had remained accessible to the probe agency and had even handed over her mobile phone voluntarily.
The senior counsel further argued that anticipatory bail was legally maintainable even in dowry death cases and that the statutory presumption under dowry death provisions would arise only after foundational facts were established.
Referring to the WhatsApp chats relied upon by the prosecution, Ramakrishnan contended that the complainant side was attributing meanings “where none existed” and contended that the deceased’s grievances were directed primarily against her husband rather than the mother-in-law.
“She (Twisha Sharma) categorically accused her husband,” Ramakrishnan argued.
She also relied on WhatsApp exchanges purportedly showing affectionate communication between Twisha Sharma and her mother-in-law shortly before the incident to contend that there was no material indicating cruelty by Giribala Singh.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the impleadment of the CBI as a party respondent in the proceedings and reserved its verdict. The high-profile case relates to the death of 33-year-old model-turned-actor Twisha Sharma, who was found hanging at her matrimonial home in Bhopal on May 12.
Her family has alleged dowry harassment, mental cruelty and foul play by her husband Samarth Singh and his family members.
The probe, initially conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Police, was later handed over to the CBI amid public outcry and allegations of bias.
The Central agency has since carried out searches, examined the crime scene, and taken the deceased’s husband, Samarth Singh, into custody as part of the ongoing investigation.
Earlier this week, the apex court had observed that the case must be investigated in a “fair, independent and unbiased” manner and requested both sides to refrain from making public statements capable of influencing the ongoing probe.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant had also appealed to media organisations to exercise restraint while reporting on statements made by persons who may be potential witnesses in the case.
The Supreme Court had clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations and said all aspects of the matter would be independently examined by the CBI.
Picture Courtesy: IANS
