Twisha Sharma death: MP High Court reserves verdict in challenge to Giribala Singh anticipatory bail

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday reserved orders on pleas challenging the anticipatory bail granted to Twisha Sharma’s in-laws, including retired judge Giribala Singh, in the alleged dowry death case..The matter was heard by Justice Devnarayan Mishra today..Appearing for Twisha Sharma's father, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra argued that the parents were not involved in the inquest as they had not been informed of the death. He said,"My point is this: at a nascent stage, the judge has confirmed anticipatory bail in such a case where the lady has not even participated in the investigation. This is unheard of in a case of such a nature...this is a case of death within 7 years of marriage by suicide. Is it not premature for the court to grant anticipatory bail at this stage. The accused has held a position in the past, she held a press conference. My daughter is being maligned and called all kinds of names, a substance abuser. For a newly married woman, I ask myself, what could be greater cruelty. I leave it to the court. The anticipatory bail was granted without noting any apprehensions of arrest. The FIR took 3 days to register."The Court then said,"The inquest notice was sent on morning of May 13. It was served upon you."Luthra replied,"The death happened at midnight. We reached at 8:30 AM, but the Court may check the time when it was served on me. The State may inform from the file, I am not aware what is in the file...I did not have benefit of the notice. But the seriousness of the offence, I want to bring to your notice.".Another lawyer added,"They (accused) have already accessed the video records of the DVR and the CCTV. They have released part of the video in court. The State has also said in their application. They are in access of all the material which was at the scene of the crime. They have given a list of the calls in the court. They themselves have said it. They have not informed the police or ambulance when the incident happened. If there was any chance for the girl to survive...there is a police station close to the house, a hospital close to the house. There are many instances where they have tried to manipulate evidence."Challenging the anticipatory bail granted to Giribala Singh, the counsel argued,"In such a case, the bail was granted because she was 63. Every mother-in-law is 63. They say she has no criminal antecedents. Most mothers-in-law will not have. She has been a judge. The death happened within 6 months. If bails started happening so soon in cases...".Luthra added,"Another thing I want to point out. May 12 is the incident. May 13, the police comes to their house. I ask myself, there is an unnatural death why did police not register FIR? I am pointing out from the reply. If they are there in the morning, why were they seizing things without FIR? Why did it take so long to register FIR? The site was secured, purportedly, but why no FIR? There is something seriously amiss.".Representing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Advocate General Prashant Singh told the Court,"FIR was registered on May 15 2:30 AM. The bail application of mother and son was before the court on May 14. The Court may consider how the bail applications were dealt with by the trial court. The documents in defence which were not part of the case diary, immediately after FIR, were filed in the bail plea. These were relied upon by the trial judge."He contended that the trial court judge conducted a mini trial while hearing the anticipatory bail pleas. He added,"They were given anticipatory bail on the first day, before the investigation could begin and more evidence could unravel. The condition for granting bail? The accused will co-operate with the prosecution. She will not unnecessarily delay. She will not tamper with witness or evidence. Kindly see the conduct of the accused. She invited press conference on May 18 and there she made wild allegations against the person who is not with us to counter the allegations. Wild allegations! The Court may see, she has virtually given a serious twist and turn to the case of the prosecution by wildly circulating her own narrative by misusing the liberty granted to her by the court through anticipatory bail...The Court may note how brutally the conditions of bail were violated.".He went on to say that the police had taken all measures to send Giribala Singh a notice."We issued a notice to her twice to co-operate with us, but she hasn't. It was informed that the person in the house refused to take notice. This is the conduct on the day when the anticipatory bail is being filed. What happens after bail, please see. When the notice was served again, the person present refused to take notice. She was not in the house. Then we sent her notice on WhatsApp...through her counsel, she is making WhatsApp communication that she is out of station and when she will be back, she will cooperate. but she did not turn up, after the notice of May 23...This is the conduct of the accused person, who happens to be retired from higher judicial service...".AG Singh then turned the Court's attention to the post mortem report, which said that injuries on Twisha's person were caused before her death..Appearing for Giribala Singh, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan said,"They have made incorrect submissions...After the incident, she was brought to the hospital, in the soonest possible time...Within hours of the death, the police were in the house, they had sealed the premise with the exception of one room, one bathroom and kitchen...Giribala Singh was present along with the son. Any questions, notices, I had signed all memos. They could have served notice on me there. Whole day, I was accessible to them. They can scribble whatever they want in the diary, they cannot make such statements. 14th we received nothing. 15th FIR was lodged. I was not notified of inquest. For post mortem father of the deceased was present. Custodial interrogation is not required for the post mortem interrogation."She went on to state,"The first time I receive a notice from them, the court may see, at the unearthly hour of night between May 20th and 21st. Is this a time of serving notice on a 63-year-old woman? and I responded at a less unearthly hour of 5 AM. I requested them to reschedule my appearance for any time of the morning or evening. To request time is not to flout condition. I informed them I am going out. They could have said don't go out, stay. Just to say that I only replied through my lawyer is not right...I have exercised my right for anticipatory bail. To say that there cannot be anticipatory bail in cases of dowry death is incorrect.".Defending her client's actions, Ramakrishnan said,"The material they have brought is WhatsApp chats and bare allegations that I demanded during the wedding. Our sympathy for the parents and the family does not go away. But that does not mean there has to be custody of a 63-year-old lady. There has to be any allegation where she was harassing for dowry, or causing any injury for dowry...the allegations are against the husband...I did not hold the press conference. I was hounded outside my lawyer's office. So I gave answers. The family can make any allegations after her death. But there has to be evidence after the unfortunate death of the daughter. There can be transfer of money, or anything. The deceased has not spoken about the mother-in-law in those terms. They are attributing them now."On the dowry demand allegations against Singh, the senior counsel said,"The mother of the deceased had been advising her daughter to speak to the mother-in-law. If the allegations against her were true, then why would she give such advice? There are allegations that 2 lakhs were demanded from marriage. She is entitled to tell the court, to show material where her son was transferring money to his wife's account...We have given her more than 7+ lakh. This becomes relevant because the allegations are saying we are trying to extort money from her. Is there a slightest hint in her WhatsApp about money? She may be unhappy in her marriage...I have not treated her badly, but I have kept silent, that is I have not taken sides. This is not equivalent to my assaulting her."The Court then queried whether Twisha and Samarth had attended couples' therapy twice. Ramakrishnan said,"What the trial court said is the unhappiness with the husband and not the mother-in-law. Just because the higher court may take another view of the material is not a reason to set aside the anticipatory bail granted.".Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared via video conferencing and asked to be heard for five minutes. He said,"The person is wielding power in the institution. It is by those who has the wherewithal. The bail was granted same day. The court could have wanted a day or two examined well. The petitioner was a formal judge and continuing judicial officer. Somebody has lost a life. In less than 24 hours bail is granted. In a situation where people are languishing in jail she got relief within 24 hours...Press conferences are held with confidence few politicians exhibit. It influences witnesses. It creates a narrative. The lady has liberal views. Are you casting aspersions on the character? On the daughter in law? The narrative was that she has liberal views. The mother of the deceased says contact your mother-in-law. This is the mistake every mother says. This is problem in India. We say try and pull on. This results in a situation which leads to nothing but suicide.".Noida-based Twisha Sharma had married Samarth Singh, a Bhopal-based lawyer, five months ago after meeting through a dating app. She was found dead at her residence in Bhopal on May 12.Sharma's family has blamed her in-laws for the death, accusing them of persistent domestic violence and harassment. An FIR was registered by the Katara Hills police station to probe the death. According to media reports, Sharma's husband and mother-in-law have been booked for dowry harassment in the case..Singh's mother Giribala Singh is a retired judge and currently President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Madhya Pradesh. She was granted anticipatory bail by a sessions court on May 15. The trial court reasoned that the allegations mainly pertained to Twisha Sharma's husband, Samarth Singh.Sharma's father, Navnidhi Sharma, moved the Jabalpur bench of the High Court on May 21 seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail..Meanwhile, sessions judge refused to grant anticipatory bail to Samarth Singh. He had also moved the High Court for protection from arrest. However, he withdrew his bail plea on May 22, with the High Court saying he could either surrender before the investigating officer or the trial court.Sharma's family demanded a second post-mortem to ascertain the actual cause of Sharma's death, which the High Court permitted on May 22. The Court ordered a team of doctors from All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi to conduct the enquiry in Bhopal..Advocates Yash S Vijay and Enosh George assisted Ramakrishnan.