‘House Was Sealed, Police Were Present’: Giri Bala’s Lawyer Counters Explosive Claims In HC, Pushes Back Against Bail Cancellation Plea

The legal battle surrounding the tragic death of 33-year-old Twisha Sharma has intensified at the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Representing Giribala Singh, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan countered the prosecution's claims line by line, arguing that the allegations of non-cooperation and evidence tampering are entirely contradicted by official records.

'Contrary to the Record': Defense Refutes Allegations of Evading Police

Addressing the court, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan argued that the narrative built around Singh’s alleged evasion is fundamentally flawed.

"Actually, what they have argued before this court is contrary to the record. They have incorrectly stated regarding the notices that were issued to me," Ramakrishnan stated. The defense attorney detailed the timeline immediately following the tragedy to prove that the authorities had full control over the premises, eliminating any possibility of the family tampering with the scene.

"Around 10:30 on May 12 at night, the unfortunate lady was found hanging, in 20 mins she was taken to AIIMS Bhopal, which is a reputable institution," Ramakrishnan noted. "From 13 onwards the entire place was sealed except for one bathroom and room. The police were in the house by 13 May. So this question of this whole thing being in our custody is false."

Ramakrishnan added that her client was fully available to investigators from the very first day: "On 13th, the record shows they were there since early morning, and they were present, and Miss Giribala Singh was also present along with her son. There is no question that I have not received notice. The whole day I was accessible to them."

However, she noted a lack of communication regarding specific procedures: "What happened at the inquest? I do not know; I was not notified. At the post-mortem, the father of the deceased was present."

Mobile Seizure and Rights to Anticipatory Bail

Ramakrishnan clarified that her client, a 63-year-old retired judicial officer, had been actively communicating with the police directly and had already surrendered her phone.

"I also responded on WhatsApp myself, not through my lawyer - at 6 AM requesting for a time. I am not required to walk in at the police station at any time. I am a 63 yr old lady. I have not ignored their messages. They came and seized my mobile handset. The recovery memo, I signed," she argued.

The defense further emphasized that the police had already gathered the necessary physical evidence. "May 24, they again came to the house. They seized whatever they needed from the area that is sealed. I do not have access to that area. All these arguments that she has been judge etc, ought not to be made."

Defending the legal validity of the bail application, Ramakrishnan stated: "I have exercised my right for anticipatory bail. To say that there cannot be anticipatory bail in cases of dowry death is incorrect. It is also to be shown that there has been a demand for dOWRY, which has been alleged against me. I will read the provision."

Contesting the WhatsApp Chats and Claims of Interference

The defense then turned to the digital evidence, presenting the context of the communication logs and arguing that the prosecution was misinterpreting standard family conversations. "Please see that they are attributing meaning to chats where none existed," Ramakrishnan said, highlighting that the lower court had evaluated the evidence contextually. "The trial court did not just see that one line but saw the whole chat."

To counter the narrative of financial harassment, the defense pointed out ongoing financial support: "We have been repeatedly transferring money to her (Twisha)."

"At this point in time- should a 63-year-old lady with roots in Bhopal and cooperated wth sealing of house, document after document, thing after thing, then if she is seeking her protection, then they are showing outrage," Ramakrishnan argued, questioning the opposition's fierce resistance to the bail.

Addressing the personal struggles of the deceased, the senior counsel argued that the marital friction did not involve the mother-in-law. "She may be unhappy in her marriage. So while granting bail, the court has said that her unhappiness is entirely with the husband. She only states that I have not taken sides, and that the husband lies in front of me. This does not mean I was involved."

The defense also addressed a medical incident regarding an MTP (Medical Termination of Pregnancy) to demonstrate a lack of interference in Twisha's personal choices. "When she was found pregnant, she was not with us but with her family. She was taken to the hospital, and the doctor suggested she keep the child. But she took the MTP while her husband was away in court. So how can you assume interference in her choice."

When the Court inquired, "Twice they consulted couple's counselling?" Ramakrishnan confirmed the interventions as standard familial steps. "Yes. Whatever has been put to the court is the facts of the case. These are normal things to do. The court may note the time of the seizures made."

Background of the Case

The high-profile case stems from the tragedy on May 12, when 33-year-old Twisha Sharma was found hanging at her matrimonial home in Bhopal's Katara Hills area. Following accusations from Twisha's family alleging dowry harassment and abetment to suicide, the police registered a First Information Report (FIR) under sections related to cruelty and dowry death against her husband, Samarth Singh, and her mother-in-law, Giribala Singh.

Twisha's husband, Samarth Singh, who had allegedly remained untraceable for several days, subsequently surrendered to the police and has been remanded to seven days of police custody. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is also likely to take custody of Samarth Singh and is expected to conduct an exhaustive forensic analysis of the residence, including the specific room where Twisha was found dead.

Meanwhile, Twisha's father has leveled serious allegations, claiming that the in-laws, including the retired judge, attempted to exert influence over the unfolding investigation. The Supreme Court of India, taking independent note of the situation, registered the matter suo motu, observing lapses in how the case was initially handled, and directed media houses to exercise restraint while reporting on the ongoing developments.
 

Also Read: ‘State Machinery Was Collusive’: Twisha Sharma’s Lawyer Siddharth Luthra Tears Into ‘Rash’ Bail Granted To Ex-Judge Giri Bala Singh