01Facts
The deceased, Twisha Sharma, married Samarth Singh (son of the respondent, a retired Judicial Officer) on 09.12.2025.
¶ 12On 12.05.2026, Twisha died by hanging in her matrimonial home under mysterious circumstances; a postmortem revealed six additional blunt-force injuries.
¶ 12, 26FIR No. 133/2026 was registered for offenses under Sections 80(2), 85, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
¶ 11On 15.05.2026, the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, granted anticipatory bail to the respondent (mother-in-law) on the day the FIR was lodged.
¶ 12, 14The State and the father of the deceased moved the High Court seeking quashment of said bail, alleging non-cooperation, tampering with evidence via press conferences, and the existence of incriminating WhatsApp chats regarding dowry demands and forced abortion.
¶ 14, 18-2102Issues
i.1. Whether the trial court exercised its discretion perversely by ignoring material evidence on record while granting anticipatory bail.
¶ 15, 21ii.2. Whether the respondent’s conduct post-bail, including non-cooperation with the investigation and public statements, warrants the quashment of the bail order.
¶ 19, 2103Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 438 of the CrPC/Section 482 of BNSS regarding anticipatory bail.
The court relied on Puran v. Rambilas and Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Anita Agarwal, establishing that bail may be cancelled if the order ignores material evidence or is perverse.
¶ 15The court cited Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra for factors governing bail, including the gravity of the offense and the likelihood of tampering.
¶ 15It further referenced Samunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan, which mandates extreme caution in granting anticipatory bail in dowry death cases.
¶ 16It cited Vipin Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, which permits revocation if the order is legally untenable or ignores societal impact at the threshold of investigation.
¶ 30Provisions in the judgment · 10 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 80Section 85Section 3Section 194
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Section 3Section 4
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 34Section 149
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Section 118
04Reasoning
The High Court found that the trial court's order suffered from patent perversity as it failed to consider the "antemortem" injuries found on the deceased's body which were unrelated to hanging.
¶ 26The court noted that the trial court erroneously characterized the allegations as "formal" and prematurely relied on defense documents (e.g., medical prescriptions and bank transfers) as "gospel truth" while ignoring the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Bhartiya Saksha Adhiniyam.
¶ 18, 25, 29The analysis highlighted that the respondent, despite being a retired Judicial Officer, failed to cooperate with investigative notices and attempted to malign the deceased's character through selective media leaks of CCTV footage.
¶ 19, 21The court determined that the WhatsApp chats provided prima facie evidence of harassment and coercion regarding pregnancy termination, which the trial court overlooked.
¶ 2805Holding
The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the trial court failed to use its discretion in a proper manner by ignoring relevant materials indicating the respondent's involvement.
¶ 15, 31The High Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary given the serious nature of the "dowry death" and the respondent's influential status and non-cooperation.
¶ 19, 29Consequently, the anticipatory bail order dated 15.05.2026 was quashed, and the petitions filed by the State and the father of the deceased were allowed.
¶ 31-32Original Court PDF
Navnidhi SharmavsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
