Zubeen Garg death case: Gauhati High Court grants bail to co-accused, citing no prima facie material against her પહેલા

Following the death of singer Zubeen Garg in Singapore, an investigation was initiated and a charge sheet filed against seven accused, including Amritprava Mahanta (A-4), alleging offences under Sections 3(6), 3(7), 3(8), 61(2), 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that A-4 participated in a conspiracy to murder Garg, including by giving him alcohol.

The trial was underway, with 124 prosecution witnesses examined by the time of the bail decision; A-4 had been in custody since 3 October 2025.

She applied to the High Court for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Whether A-4 should be released on bail under Section 483 BNSS, considering the nature of the accusations, the material collected and the progress of the trial.

Whether her status as a woman, length of custody, and absence of criminal antecedents further supported release on bail.

Section 483 BNSS empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail to an accused in custody.

Bail is discretionary and must be decided judicially, considering, among other factors, the prima facie case, gravity of the accusation, potential sentence, risk of absconding, witness interference and obstruction of justice; a bail order should give reasons, particularly in serious cases (Amarmani Tripathi, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, Ram Govind Upadhyay and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar).

A conspiracy requires an agreement to pursue an unlawful object, provable by direct or circumstantial evidence; suspicion alone is insufficient (CBI v. K. Narayana Rao).

An accused’s police statement cannot be relied on as evidence against that accused at the bail stage in the manner discussed in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh.

Section 480(1) BNSS provides a special bail provision for women, which must be considered when exercising bail jurisdiction; it is a relevant factor, though not an automatic entitlement (Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI).

The Court found that neither the investigation materials nor the trial testimony examined to date provided support for the allegation that A-4 fed alcohol to Garg or participated in arranging the trip, yacht outing or swimming.

The prosecution witnesses who made such allegations either did not identify A-4 from personal knowledge or relied on media reports or the charge sheet; the Court also found no documentary material supporting the alleged role.

It therefore found no prima facie case against A-4 on the materials then available and considered that the charge-sheet findings concerning her lacked support from the investigation materials.

In assessing whether continued detention was justified, the Court also considered the progress of the trial, her period in custody, her lack of antecedents and the statutory provision applicable to women.

The Court expressly confined its assessment to the bail application, leaving guilt or innocence to be decided at trial.

Conditions included cooperation with the trial, no interference with evidence or witnesses, and no travel abroad without the trial court’s permission; breach could lead to cancellation of bail.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail decision and did not determine the merits of the pending trial.