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

The legal battle in the sensational Twisha Sharma death case intensified on Wednesday after senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Twisha’s father, launched a blistering attack on the anticipatory bail granted to former judge Giri Bala Singh, calling it a “rash” order passed without proper reasoning.

Arguing before the court in the plea challenging Giri Bala’s anticipatory bail, Luthra raised serious questions over the conduct of the Bhopal Police, the timing of the FIR and the speed with which bail was granted to the former judge.

“Victim family has been trying to register FIR. It gets registered on May 15. The anticipatory bail is registered on May 14, it was heard on May 15. What investigation happened in that period that the court came to the conclusion that her custody is not required,” Luthra argued.

Pointing to the accused’s legal and judicial background, Luthra said, “She has been a judge, the other accused is a lawyer. The judge has undergone training of crime scene management and forensic science.”

The senior advocate further alleged that the accused persons continued to remain inside the house where the death took place for days after the incident.

“That is what we have been submitting in the lower court. May 12 to May 15, they enjoyed the house. Immediately after the order, till the case was handed over to CBI, they have been enjoying the house,” he submitted.

Questioning the grounds on which anticipatory bail was granted, Luthra took aim at the reasoning cited by the lower court.

“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,” he said.

Luthra warned against the precedent such orders could create in cases involving unnatural deaths of young married women.

“She has been a judge. The death happened within six months of marriage. If bails started happening so soon in such cases…” he argued.

The lawyer also sharply questioned the conduct of the police immediately after Twisha’s death on May 12.

“May 12 is the incident. May 13 the police come to their house. I ask myself, there is an unnatural death, why did police not register an FIR?” Luthra said.

Referring to the state’s own submissions, he questioned why evidence collection allegedly began even before an FIR was lodged.

“If they are there in the morning, what were they seizing things without FIR? Why did it take so long to register the FIR? The site was secured, purportedly, but why no FIR? There is something seriously amiss,” he argued.

Luthra also accused the state machinery of acting in a collusive manner and selectively presenting facts before the court.

“The state machinery has been collusive. The manner in which things have proceeded, selective aspects are taken and bail has been granted,” he submitted.

Seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail, Luthra said the order lacked adequate judicial reasoning.

“I am seeking to quash the anticipatory bail order. The order is bereft of reasons,” he told the court.

The case pertains to the death of Twisha Sharma, who died under suspicious circumstances within months of her marriage. According to the FIR now re-registered by the CBI, the Bhopal Police received information on May 12 around 10:20 pm from Twisha’s husband, claiming she had died by suicide.

The FIR states that the postmortem found “antemortem hanging by ligature” as the cause of death, while also noting “multiple antemortem injuries” on other parts of her body.

Twisha’s family has alleged sustained dowry harassment by her husband and in-laws. The complaint claims Twisha was repeatedly taunted over inadequate wedding expenses and that financial demands continued after marriage.

The FIR further alleges that Twisha was pressured to terminate her pregnancy after she conceived in April.

Earlier, Giri Bala Singh had opposed the Madhya Pradesh Police’s plea seeking cancellation of her anticipatory bail, denying allegations of non-cooperation. In her reply, she claimed she had fully cooperated with the investigation and argued that the prosecution had failed to produce material justifying cancellation of bail.

She also denied witness intimidation allegations and maintained that there was no delay in registration of the FIR.