The High Court’s order specified that the Director of AIIMS, New Delhi, should constitute a team of experts at the earliest. These experts were to arrive via a special flight arranged by the State Government to perform the post-mortem. The court clarified that this directive was not intended to impute any wrongful motive or cast doubt upon the earlier post-mortem report or its authors, but solely to ensure clarity given the timing of the death relative to the marriage.

Challenges to Bail and Government Response

In addition to the autopsy directive, the High Court addressed a petition challenging the anticipatory bail granted to Giribala Singh, the retired judge and mother-in-law of Twisha Sharma. Singh, who is also an accused in the case, had been granted anticipatory bail by a local Bhopal court. The High Court directed her to appear before it on or before May 25, 2026. Ankur Pandey, the lawyer representing Sharma’s family, explained that both the family and the State government had challenged the anticipatory bail, prompting the High Court to issue a notice to Ms. Singh.

Bhopal Police Commissioner Sanjay Kumar provided further context regarding the legal challenges against Giribala Singh. He stated that the police had issued three notices to her and that the anticipatory bail was challenged because she had not been cooperating with the probe. Commissioner Kumar highlighted allegations from Sharma’s family that Ms. Singh had made several phone calls to influential persons and judicial authorities in the wake of the woman’s death.

Commissioner Kumar also addressed potential criticisms regarding the police response time. He asserted that the police had registered the FIR within two days of the incident, demonstrating prompt action. He emphasized that while the local police investigation was ongoing, the CBI probe was a matter determined at the government level.

The background of the case stems from the discovery of Sharma’s body hanging at her marital home in Bhopal on the night of May 12. She was 33 years old and had married Mr. Singh on December 25 of the previous year. Her family has leveled serious allegations of mental harassment and financial demands against Mr. Singh and his mother. The situation intensified after Mr. Singh remained at large following the registration of an FIR on May 15. During this period, his mother made claims to the media that Sharma was suffering from mental illness, was taking schizophrenia medications, and had an addiction to contraband substances like marijuana, allegations that the family has contested.

Madhya Pradesh Justice System Faces Scrutiny

The arrest of Samarth Singh and the recommendation for a CBI probe highlight the escalating pressure on state authorities to deliver transparent justice in high-profile dowry death cases. The involvement of the High Court in ordering a second autopsy and summoning the mother-in-law indicates a judicial system actively monitoring the investigation to prevent procedural lapses. As the state prepares to hand over investigative powers to the Central Bureau of Investigation, it signals a recognition that local dynamics may complicate impartiality. The upcoming court appearances of both the husband and the mother-in-law will be critical, as their testimonies could either corroborate the family’s allegations of harassment or validate the defense’s claims of mental health issues. The long-term impact of this case may reinforce stricter judicial oversight in dowry-related deaths, ensuring that special courts and central agencies intervene more promptly when evidence of tampering or coercion is suspected.