Twisha Sharma’s family as well as her absconding husband, Samarth Singh, moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday. Meanwhile, the Madhya Pradesh Police also issued a lookout circular (LoC) to prevent him from fleeing the country and tripled the cash reward for information leading to his arrest to Rs 30,000.On Thursday, Twisha’s father Navnidhi Sharma moved a petition before the HC against a May 15 anticipatory bail order for the retired judge and her mother-in-law Giribala Singh from a Bhopal sessions court.Earlier in the day, her absconding husband Samarth Singh had also moved the Jabalpur High Court seeking anticipatory bail, days after a lower court rejected his plea in the dowry death case linked to Twisha’s death in Bhopal.In another major development, CM Mohan Yadav said the state government would push for CBI inquiry of the case after he met Twisha’s parents. On Wednesday, a court in Bhopal had rejected their plea for second postmortem but issued directions to preserve her body.Advocate Mrigendra Singh, appearing for the accused in the Twisha Sharma death case, told the media that the defence side, too, wanted the matter to be investigated by the CBI.Singh said a bail petition filed on behalf of accused Samarth Singh is likely to come up for hearing in the High Court either on Friday or next Monday.“Twisha Sharma died by suicide on May 12. Her mother-in-law, Giribala Singh, has already been granted bail by the Bhopal court. We had also filed an anticipatory bail plea on behalf of her husband, Samarth Singh, before the Bhopal court, but it was rejected. We have now moved the High Court, where the matter is likely to be heard tomorrow or next Monday,” Singh said.He further alleged that the claims made by Twisha’s father were “false” and aimed at “garnering sympathy”. “We also want the case to be investigated by the CBI,” the advocate added.Twisha, 33, was found hanging at her matrimonial home in Bhopal’s Katara Hills area on May 12. Since then, the case has spiralled into a contentious legal and investigative battle marked by allegations of dowry harassment, disputed timelines, missing evidence and mounting questions over the handling of the investigation.Police have registered an FIR against Samarth Singh and his mother Giribala Singh under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Dowry Prohibition Act. While Giribala Singh was granted anticipatory bail earlier, Samarth Singh’s plea had been rejected by a magistrate court. He remains untraceable.Police have now increased the reward for information leading to his arrest from Rs 10,000 to Rs 30,000. Authorities have also approached the court seeking cancellation of his passport.Twisha’s family has accused her in laws of harassing her for dowry and forcing her into circumstances that led to her death. The Singh family, meanwhile, has claimed that Twisha was addicted to narcotic substances.The matter intensified further after a Bhopal court refused to order a second post mortem examination. However, during proceedings, police submitted in writing that they had no objection to a second post mortem. Following the court’s refusal, Twisha’s family decided to move the High Court.In court, Twisha’s lawyer raised a series of questions over the post mortem findings and the investigation process. The counsel questioned why injuries found on Twisha’s body were not described in detail in the post mortem report and argued that several doubts could have been addressed had the belt allegedly used in the hanging been deposited on time.The lawyer also pointed to what was described as a serious discrepancy in the records of Twisha’s height. According to the submissions made in court, the height noted during the post mortem did not match the height mentioned in the police records.As hearings continued, both the police and Twisha’s family remained present before the court. What initially appeared to be a suspected suicide case has now widened into a maze of unanswered questions involving the alleged disappearance of the belt during the post mortem process, inconsistencies in injury documentation, mismatch in height records, contradictions in the FIR, discrepancies in CCTV timestamps and the continued absence of the husband.Twisha’s lawyer also questioned the conduct of both AIIMS and the police, asking why the belt allegedly used in the hanging was not sought during the initial post mortem examination. According to the family, the delayed production of the belt prevented doctors from properly matching the marks on Twisha’s neck with the alleged ligature material.Another issue raised during the hearing concerned the presence of Giribala Singh’s sister at AIIMS during the post mortem process. The lawyer told the court that the woman allegedly works at Bansal Hospital and questioned why she was allowed to remain present during the procedure.The family also questioned why the local police station was not informed immediately after Twisha was taken to AIIMS. While the lawyer stated that taking her to the hospital was justified, the delay in informing police raised concerns over how the crucial first few hours after her death were handled.Twisha’s family has now formally sought preservation of her body. According to submissions made in court, the body has remained in the mortuary since May 13 and has not yet been claimed by the family.The CCTV footage linked to the case has emerged as one of the most contested aspects of the investigation. According to details presented during the hearing, Twisha was seen heading towards the terrace at around 7.20 pm. Around 8.20 pm, three people were allegedly seen carrying her body downstairs. However, the FIR records the time of death as 10.50 pm.The nearly three-hour gap has now become central to the case. Questions are being raised over whether the CCTV timestamp was incorrect, whether the recorded time of death was inaccurate, or whether the discrepancy points to something more serious.Further scrutiny has also fallen on the FIR itself. Twisha’s age has allegedly been mentioned differently in separate sections of the document. One part reportedly records her date of birth as April 16, 1987, while another describes her as 33 years old and yet another section mentions her age as 31.For the family, these are not mere clerical mistakes but signs of what they allege is a flawed and biased investigation requiring deeper judicial scrutiny. Another contradiction flagged before the court concerns the status of the body. While the FIR allegedly states that the body had been handed over to the family, Twisha’s relatives maintain that they have not taken custody of it and that it continues to remain in the mortuary.