Furthermore, the High Court observed that the trial court failed to consider allegations presented by the victim’s family against Singh while granting bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail order dated May 15, 2026, passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge in Bhopal, was quashed. Singh faces charges under Sections 80(2), 85, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Arguments from Solicitor General and Prosecution

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Madhya Pradesh government, argued that the manner in which anticipatory bail was obtained raised serious doubts about the trial court’s consideration of relevant factors. Mehta stated that after bail was granted, Singh held press conferences and made allegations against the deceased while flouting the law.

“After granting bail, the respondent was making press conferences and making allegations against the deceased and flouting the law. In such a serious matter, when the girl, aged about 33 years, lost her life, the respondent has no remorse and has not tried to cooperate with the investigating agency,” Mehta told the court. He added that the trial court had not considered a single line of prosecution witnesses and had entirely relied on defense documents.

Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, who appeared for Twisha’s father, accused Singh of leveraging her judicial background to obstruct the investigation. Luthra revealed that Singh had undergone special training in cyber crimes, cyber forensics, and crime scene management.

“The respondent [Ms. Singh] is a retired judicial officer and obtained the training of Special Courses on Cyber Crimes, Cyber Forensic & Digital Signature Technology and Crime Scene Management and used her skills to tamper the crime scene,” Luthra argued, suggesting she used these technical skills to manipulate evidence.

CBI’s Concerns Over Evidence and Medical Conduct

The CBI’s counsel, Deputy Solicitor General Suyash Mohan Guru, flagged the “mystery revolving around the death” and the potential involvement of influential individuals. He noted that the accused could not provide explanations for the injuries found on Twisha’s body. Guru highlighted disturbing details regarding the first autopsy conducted at AIIMS Bhopal on May 13.

Guru stated that Ms. Singh’s sister, Rajbala Singh Bhadoriya, a private doctor in Bhopal, and another private doctor were present inside the post-mortem room during the autopsy. This presence raised questions about the integrity of the medical examination process and the handling of crucial forensic evidence.

Twisha’s husband, Samarth Singh, a lawyer, is already in CBI custody. The agency plans to confront the mother and son with each other’s statements as it interrogates them further on the events leading to Twisha’s death. The family has reiterated their claim that their daughter was killed, a stance strengthened by the high court’s acknowledgment of antemortem injuries.

Madhya Pradesh Court Reinforces Legal Accountability in Dowry Cases

The arrest of a retired judicial officer underscores the rigorous scrutiny applied in the Twisha Sharma case. The High Court’s intervention highlights a systemic check on judicial bias and the misuse of professional knowledge to evade legal consequences. As the CBI moves to confront the accused and analyze the medical discrepancies, this case may set a precedent for how cyber forensic training is monitored in legal investigations. The continued focus on antemortem injuries and unauthorized access to post-mortem rooms suggests that future probes will demand stricter oversight of medical evidence handling to prevent potential tampering by individuals with specialized knowledge.