CBI officers arrested Giribala Singh, a retired judge and mother-in-law of 33-year-old Twisha Sharma, in Bhopal on Thursday, sharply escalating the investigation into the young woman’s death at her matrimonial home on May 12.
Singh, who has also served as president of a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Madhya Pradesh, was taken into custody after several hours of questioning at her residence in the Bag Mughaliya extension area. The arrest came a day after the Madhya Pradesh High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to her by a Bhopal sessions court.
Twisha Sharma, a Noida resident who had married Bhopal-based lawyer Samarth Singh in December 2025, was found dead at her in-laws’ home barely five months after the wedding. Her family has accused her husband and mother-in-law of dowry harassment, mental and physical cruelty, pressure linked to her pregnancy and involvement in her death. The accused have denied the allegations and maintained that Sharma died by suicide.
The case has moved rapidly through the courts and investigative agencies after questions were raised over the handling of the initial probe. A case was registered at Katara Hills police station under provisions relating to dowry death, cruelty by husband or relatives, common intention, and alleged offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Central Bureau of Investigation later took over the probe after intervention at the highest judicial level.
Samarth Singh, Sharma’s husband, is already in CBI custody, with investigators expected to examine the sequence of events leading up to her death and confront the statements of the accused where necessary. The High Court’s decision to cancel Giribala Singh’s anticipatory bail has opened the way for custodial interrogation of the mother-son duo, a step investigators consider significant because of alleged inconsistencies and unanswered questions in the case.
The High Court took note of the post-mortem findings, which recorded death due to ante-mortem hanging by ligature but also referred to additional ante-mortem injuries on Sharma’s body, including injuries on her arm, finger and head. The court observed that these injuries were not explained by the act of removing the body from the ligature or transporting it to hospital.
Investigators are also examining electronic evidence, including WhatsApp conversations, call detail records and tower locations of relevant mobile numbers linked to the period around May 12. The CBI has sought preservation of call data and location information for those connected with the incident and has begun reconstructing the timeline from the night Sharma died through the days that followed.
A forensic team carried out a detailed examination of the residence using high-intensity 3D imaging equipment, scanning the premises and surrounding areas to assess visibility from neighbouring terraces and balconies. The exercise is aimed at testing competing accounts of what happened inside the house and whether any external vantage points may assist the reconstruction.
The High Court also noted allegations that Singh had not fully cooperated with investigators despite repeated notices. Prosecutors argued that her background as a judicial officer and her training in cybercrime, cyber forensics and crime scene management required closer scrutiny because of concerns over possible interference with evidence. Allegations relating to the circulation of selective CCTV footage have also become part of the wider investigation.
Sharma’s parents have pushed for an impartial probe, alleging that the initial investigation did not move with the urgency required in a dowry death case involving influential accused. A request for a second post-mortem was first rejected by a Bhopal court, while preservation of the body under controlled conditions was allowed. A second autopsy was later carried out after judicial intervention, adding another layer to the forensic examination.
The Supreme Court, while facilitating the transfer of the investigation to the CBI, cautioned both families and the media against creating competing public narratives while the probe remained active. The court said statements should be placed before investigators rather than being turned into public campaigns, stressing that the case must be examined fairly and independently.
