‘Held Press Meets, Evaded Police’: MP Advocate General Questions Haste in Granting Bail to Giri Bala, Reveals 7 Antemortem Injuries on Twisha’s Body

The legal battle over the anticipatory bail granted to former judge Giri Bala Singh has escalated dramatically in the Jabalpur High Court. Presenting the state's case for cancellation, Advocate General Prasant Singh raised serious objections against the trial court's decision to grant relief. Arguing that "the judge was conducting a mini trial while hearing bail," the AG highlighted a series of critical oversights, alleging that the trial court relied on unverified defense documents before investigators could even collect primary evidence.

The state contends that this initial relief allowed Giri Bala to engage in a "hide and seek" game with investigators, noting she had plenty of time to address the media but repeatedly refused to join the actual investigation.

Meanwhile, Giri Bala Singh has strongly opposed the Madhya Pradesh Police's plea, calling the state's move legally unsustainable and maintaining that she has fully cooperated with the probe.

Here is a breakdown of the key arguments and every statement presented by both sides during the intense court hearing.

State Claims Trial Court Conducted a 'Mini Trial'

Advocate General Prasant Singh raised serious questions about the rapid timeline of the initial bail. He noted that the original FIR was registered on May 15 at 2:30 AM, yet the bail application of the mother and son was already before the court on May 14.

The AG pointed out that defense documents, which were not part of the official case diary, were filed immediately after the FIR and relied upon by the trial judge. He stressed that "there is an observation on the merits of the case" before reading the order in Hindi.

When the court asked which accused was having what issues when the bail was heard on May 15, the AG laid out his core argument:

"Please appreciate what I want to submit. First day of registration of FIR, the important material is to be collected. On the first day of registration of FIR, all these defence documents, were relied upon. See how the findings are recorded. The judge was conducting a mini trial while hearing bail. I am reading the order."

The AG further argued that the trial court reached premature conclusions based on selective evidence:

"That screenshot which was placed on behalf of the accused, that was taken into consideration. The court was expecting the complainant side to controvert it. This is the first finding."

He emphasized that the defense "took one chat which shows the mother in law and twisha had good relations and wrote the same in the order," while other chats were ignored. He added that the court considered "so many documents, including her medicines and her mental conditions, which were not collected by agency, but were considered by the court."

'Hide and Seek' With Police: AG Details Ignored Notices

The prosecution presented a strict timeline from the case diary to demonstrate how the accused allegedly flouted the court's mandates, revealing that Giri Bala and her son Samarth refused to comply with police notices from the very beginning.

"The incident took place on the 12TH. This is the second notice they issued to her to cooperate with the investigation. This was her conduct before the grant of bail. Now let's see what happens after the bail."

Reading relevant pages of the case diary, the AG showed that notices were sent to the accused to present their statements at the Katara Hills police station. He noted that both mother and son refused to comply with the notice, stating that they would only talk after reaching out to their lawyer.

The non-cooperation continued after bail was granted. The AG highlighted a notice issued on May 21 asking her to come and present her side, noting that the Investigating Officer (IO) had also texted her on WhatsApp.

"She responded to this message, which is on page 40. Gribala Singh is out of station and would reach late, and so she would be available for giving a statement thereafter. She is making this communication via her counsel. She did not turn up. Annexure R8 is notice issued on May 23."

Reading from Annexure R8, the AG told the court:

"She moved for anticipatory bail and got it in a few hours. She is not responding to repeated notices from the investigating agency. A series of notices we have issued, but she is not cooperating. Series of notices issued to her! She is not ready to co-operate with the agency! Such person has been granted bail! At first count for not co-operating with the agency, for sending messages through her counsel and not turning up, such kind of hide and seek with the prosecution in such a sensitive matter. This is the conduct of the accused person, who happens to be retired from higher judicial service."

Prosecution Alleges Slander Campaign and Fabricated Narrative

Moving to the conduct of the accused after securing relief, the Advocate General outlined the explicit conditions of the anticipatory bail:

• She shall cooperate with the investigation office
• She shall not try to delay the proceedings.
• She shall not intimidate the victim's family

The AG argued that the accused immediately flouted these terms to distort the case and launch a character assassination broadside against the victim:

"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 state government contended that bail was granted on the first day, before the investigation could properly begin or more evidence could unravel, which required the accused to cooperate, not delay, and not tamper with witnesses or evidence.

The AG pointed out the stark contradiction in her actions:

"She has time to hold press conferences, but not to co-operate in the investigation. The order granting bail is perverse in the facts of the case. 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 agency."

Massive Disclosures: CBI Takes Over, Post-Mortem Reveals 7 Injuries

During the proceedings, a major development was confirmed when the Bench asked: "The CBI has taken up the case and filed a fresh FIR and submitted along with the case diary?" AG Prasant Singh responded, "Yes," noting that the new CBI FIR is now filed with the case diary.

The AG re-emphasized his objection to the trial court's haste in light of the new filings:

"Yes. That is filed with the case diary. Within a hour of filing, bail was granted. In such a sensitive matter, when the prosecution has not collected the entire material, the complete material is not before the trial court, then bail is granted."

Reading from the fresh CBI FIR, the AG detailed the underlying allegations of dowry demands: "At the time of marriage, upon demand of Giri Bala Singh, ₹2 lakh was given."

The AG argued that the legal presumption of dowry death must apply here:

"There is a presumption of dowry death. Here in the case at hand within 5 to 6 months of marriage, the women died. Is this allegation not against the respondent for the dowry demand? The FIR was registered, the bail was filed, there is presumption of dowry death because death is within 7 years and in this case within 6 months. There are allegations against the mother in law particularly too, in the FIR, along with husband."

The AG then made a massive disclosure regarding the physical evidence surrounding Twisha's death, reading the reasons for her death from the original FIR and post-mortem report, pointing to seven distinct injuries found on Twisha's body.

"An injury was found on the head. Fingerprints were found. The possibility of hitting her on her head that Microsoft cannot be ruled out on the day when the FIR was registered. Maybe at a later stage, but not when the FIR was filed."

When the Court asked, "These injuries are ante-mortem?", the AG replied:

"Yes. The report also talks of whether these injuries was before the incident (of death), during or after the incident. The court may read. The report clarifies they were all ante-mortem."

Reading the post-mortem report further, the AG specified the nature and location of the seven injuries found on Twisha's body, including her scalp, wrist, and elbow:

"The bluish contusions are simple in nature and are three days old. The contusions before the elbow are shortly before death."

The state government strongly asserted that these injuries could not have occurred while bringing the body down from the ceiling, heavily hinting at an assault before her death was reported. The AG stated:

"The court may note the dates of the notices issued. It is all a matter of record. I am referring to a list of the dates. Not like the accused who produced strange material before the trial court, we are not doing that. The court may note how brutally the conditions of bail were violated."

The AG summarized that the trial court completely overlooked these severe medical facts:

"All the allegations have been overlooked by the trial court and the material put forth by the accused has been considered, which was not even part of the case diary. The court may see the statement also. Why am I reading this? To show sufficient material was there before the court to consider, from the prosecution. All these important material were ignored at the stage of granting bail. The court may see. There was sufficient material, that within 6 months she died, therefore all these important material were ignored while granting bail to accused."

Court Pushes to Conclude as AG Submits Precedents

As the AG began submitting a compilation of legal precedents and reading another precedent to support the cancellation, the Bench intervened to keep the matter moving.

• Court: "This is too much, I am trying to conclude today. You tell me paragraphs from each judgment, I will read."
• AG: "This is important, I am merely trying to assist the court. I would like to read them.."
• Court: "Just point out to the important paragraphs."
• Assuring the court of the state's transparency, the AG added:
• "I am not referring to any document outside the case diary. I will read from these documents only. For the convenience of the court."
• When the advocate for the accused intervened, stating, "We have not seen this material. You have to show us," the Advocate General responded directly:
• "You will see each and every material when you co-operate with the investigation. You will receive everything. This is from the case diary only."

Concluding his arguments, the AG pointed out that the defense had even leaked sensitive evidence to the public to control the narrative:

"Holding press conference. CCTV footage was circulated to the media of the body being taken down. It was widely circulated. We have the evidence now, but it was copied and circulated to the media. I respectfully submit, this is a fit case for cancellation of bail. Our application may kindly be allowed."

Giri Bala Singh Defends Her Anticipatory Bail

Addressing the police’s concerns over the FIR, Giri Bala maintained that there was no delay in registration of the case, noting that the FIR was officially filed on May 15. She further rejected allegations that she attempted to influence witnesses despite records showing 46 phone calls allegedly linked to the matter.

Calling the cancellation plea legally untenable, Giri Bala argued that anticipatory bail “cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner” and asserted that the prosecution had failed to establish any violation of bail conditions or misuse of liberty on her part.

In her response, Giri Bala directly contradicted the claims made by the MP Police, asserting that she has cooperated with investigators throughout the probe. She termed the allegations of non-cooperation “baseless” and said there is no evidence to substantiate the prosecution’s claims. She added that the grant of anticipatory bail by a competent court cannot be questioned casually unless there is clear evidence of violation of conditions or interference in the investigation.