Twisha Sharma’s husband is ready to surrender before the court, even while forensic questions and investigation are still continuing.
Can a husband be publicly treated as guilty even before the investigation is complete?
MADHYA PRADESH: The Madhya Pradesh High Court led by Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh has ordered a second post-mortem in the Twisha Sharma death case, while her husband Samarth Singh told the court that he is ready to surrender before the law.
The case is now likely to be investigated further by the CBI after serious allegations and public controversy surrounding the death.
The case relates to the death of Twisha Sharma, a woman in her 30s from Noida, who was found hanging at her matrimonial home in Bhopal on May 12. Soon after her death, allegations were made against her husband and in-laws, and an FIR was registered under Sections 80(2), 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita along with provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
During the hearing before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Samarth Singh informed the court that he was ready to withdraw his anticipatory bail plea and surrender before the authorities. However, he requested that his regular bail application should be heard on the same day after surrender.
The High Court then ordered a second autopsy and directed that it should be conducted by doctors from AIIMS New Delhi in Bhopal itself. According to reports, special arrangements including a flight would be made to bring the doctors for the procedure.
The earlier post-mortem report had stated that Twisha Sharma died due to “antemortem hanging by ligature”. The report also mentioned multiple simple injuries caused by blunt force on different parts of the body.
The family of the deceased had approached the High Court after claiming that there were irregularities in the first post-mortem conducted at AIIMS Bhopal. Earlier, a local magistrate court had refused permission for a second autopsy.
Judicial Magistrate First Class Anudita Gupta had observed that the court’s conscience must be satisfied before directing a re-post-mortem. The magistrate further stated that minor procedural lapses alone were not enough to justify a second autopsy.
Meanwhile, the Madhya Pradesh government has also recommended a CBI investigation into the matter. The development has increased legal and public attention on the case.
The matter has also triggered debate over how husbands are rapidly treated as guilty in emotionally charged matrimonial death cases even before the investigation is completed. Despite the first medical report recording “antemortem hanging by ligature”, the husband continues to face intense public suspicion while the investigation is still ongoing.
As the second post-mortem and possible CBI probe move forward, the final truth behind Twisha Sharma’s death will now depend upon forensic evidence, medical findings, and judicial scrutiny rather than media narratives alone.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Provisions Involved
| Law / Provision | Purpose | How Applied In This Case |
| Section 80(2) BNS | Punishes dowry death | Applied after Twisha Sharma’s unnatural death at her matrimonial home |
| Section 85 BNS | Punishes cruelty by husband or relatives | Invoked over allegations of harassment and assault |
| Section 3(5) BNS | Fixes joint liability on multiple accused | Applied against husband and mother-in-law together |
| Dowry Prohibition Act | Prohibits dowry demands and harassment | Added due to dowry-related allegations |
| Anticipatory Bail | Gives protection from arrest before custody | Husband approached court seeking pre-arrest relief |
| Second Post-Mortem | Allows fresh medical examination | High Court ordered re-autopsy by AIIMS Delhi doctors |
| CBI Investigation | Transfers probe to central agency | MP Government recommended CBI investigation |
Case Details
- Case Title: Twisha Sharma Death Case / Samarth Singh Bail Proceedings
- Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Bench: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
- Date of Order: 22 May 2026
- Counsels:
- Anurag Shrivastava — Counsel representing Twisha Sharma’s family
- Senior Advocate Tushar Mehta reportedly appeared during proceedings/objected on certain submissions as per media reports
Key Takeaways
- A husband was publicly treated like a criminal even before the investigation and forensic process were completed.
- The first post-mortem mentioning “antemortem hanging by ligature” received far less public attention than the allegations.
- Matrimonial death cases often create immediate social and legal pressure on husbands regardless of final evidence.
- The High Court ordering a second post-mortem itself shows that medical and investigative conclusions were still not final.
- Due process, forensic evidence, and fair investigation must prevail over emotional narratives and media trials in matrimonial cases.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
