Assam HC grants bail to Zubeen Garg’s cousin in drowning-death case after a year in custody

Zubeen Garg died by drowning during a yacht trip in Singapore on 19 September 2025.

The petitioner, his cousin and a Deputy Superintendent of Police, was charged under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), on allegations that he knew of the deceased’s epilepsy and intoxication yet allowed or encouraged him to swim and failed to take steps to protect him

The petitioner had been in custody since 8 October 2025; the investigation was complete, a chargesheet had been filed, and the trial was underway.

His bail application before the Trial Court was rejected, prompting the present application

1. Whether the petitioner had shown a sufficient basis for release on bail pending trial, having regard to the prima facie case, gravity of the charge, custody, and risk of absconding or influencing witnesses.

2. Whether the prosecution’s allegations of instigation and omission to protect the deceased, considered at the bail stage, justified continued detention under the charge framed pursuant to Section 105 BNS.

Bail is a judicial discretion to be exercised on the circumstances of the case, including the prima facie basis of the accusation, its nature and gravity, the likely punishment, the accused’s risk of absconding, and the possibility of witness tampering or obstruction of justice; a detailed assessment of evidence is not required at the bail stage

Pre-trial detention is intended to secure the accused’s attendance, not to punish before conviction

Section 105 BNS concerns culpable homicide not amounting to murder, including where the requisite knowledge that an act is likely to cause death is alleged; the Court also considered the prosecution’s reliance on the BNS definitions of “act,” “legally bound to do,” and “omission” in advancing its duty-of-care theory

These principles required the Court to make only a tentative assessment for bail, without prejudicing the trial

The Court noted that the prosecution did not contend that the petitioner was part of the original conspiracy and that the allegations against him principally concerned his conduct and omissions toward the deceased.

The evidence then available did not clearly establish that the petitioner instigated the second swim: some witnesses’ accounts and the digital material appeared to support the possibility that he verbally restrained the deceased, while some attributed the suggestion to swim toward shore to another accused.

The Court considered the legal duty allegedly arising from the petitioner’s relationship with the deceased and his voluntary assumption of care to be debatable, and observed that the charge imputed knowledge rather than an intention to cause death.

The petitioner had spent about a year in custody, the investigation and documentary evidence were secured, he had no asserted criminal antecedents, and the prosecution’s concerns about witness influence could be addressed by conditions; the trial was expected to take further time.

These were provisional observations solely for deciding bail

It ordered his release in Sessions Case No. 256/2025 on a bond of ₹50,000 with two local sureties of like amount, each having immovable property within the Trial Court’s jurisdiction, subject to the Trial Court’s satisfaction.

He was required to attend and cooperate with the trial, refrain from hampering it or tampering with evidence, not influence witnesses, and not leave the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without written permission; breach could result in cancellation of bail.

The bail application was allowed