‘Curiosity of society might outweigh private liberty’: Why accused in Zubeen Garg case was refused bail | India Information
The Gauhati Excessive Courtroom on Friday rejected the bail plea of Shyamkanu Mahanta, a kind of accused in a case related to the dying of famous person singer Zubeen Garg. Whereas rejecting the bail, the court docket noticed that “it’s attainable in a given scenario, the curiosity of society might outweigh private liberty”, and likewise cited different grounds, corresponding to “flight danger”, the danger of proof tampering and influencing of witnesses, and “the gravity of the offence”.
Mahanta is one in every of seven accused arrested in reference to Garg’s dying in September final 12 monthsand one of many 4 towards whom there are homicide costs.
On Thursday, the fast-track court docket listening to the case had framed costs towards all seven on the offences underneath which that they had been chargesheeted. The decrease court docket has to date rejected all of the bail pleas in reference to the case, and the fast-track court docket had on Friday rejected the bail plea of one other accused, Shekhar Jyoti Goswami. Mahanta’s is the primary case by which the Gauhati Excessive Courtroom has heard a bail plea. The fast-track court docket had earlier rejected his bail plea on April 30. He was the organiser of the Northeast India Competition, for which Garg had gone to Singapore as a “cultural model ambassador”.
Garg died on September 19, 2025, whereas in Singapore. Earlier than the pageant started, he went for a yacht outing, reportedly organised by members of the Assam Affiliation Singapore. He died after shedding consciousness whereas swimming throughout that outing, and a subsequent investigation discovered that he was in a state of intoxication on the time.
Courtroom arguments
The state respondents to the bail plea had argued that Mahanta was allegedly social gathering to a “conspiracy” and “compelled” Garg to attend the pageant in Singapore, intentionally obtained him drunk and didn’t forestall him from attending the social gathering on the yacht regardless of his medical historical past of epilepsy and medical directions to keep away from alcohol, water and hearth.
Mahanta’s counsel argued that he’s harmless and never social gathering to a conspiracy, that Garg had been consuming of his personal volition, and that he had not organised the yacht outing, however had as a substitute instructed the organiser to convey Garg again in time for a perform within the night.
After listening to the arguments of either side and going by way of the supplies offered by the investigating officer, the Gauhati Excessive Courtroom Bench of Justice Mitali Thakuria stated in her order, “Prima facie, it’s seen that regardless of full information with regard to the well being situation of the deceased, Zubeen Garg, there was no correct security association or medical services for the deceased…”
Story continues under this advert
“With out going into the opposite detailed benefit of the case, prima facie, it’s seen that there was a conspiracy of the petitioner together with different co-accused individuals… as a result of inspite of getting information concerning the well being situation of the deceased, Zubeen Garg, he by no means prohibited or restrained the organiser of the yacht journey to not take Zubeen Garg on the journey whereby water actions have been organised within the deep sea… slightly, with the session of the current accused petitioner, all the journey was organised, which prima facie reveals that he performed an lively half within the stated conspiracy,” the order stated.
‘Flight danger’, public outcry
Noting that Mahanta had travelled to Malaysia after the incident earlier than flying into Delhiwhere he was arrested after the case was registered, the court docket noticed, “His earlier conduct of fleeing away to Malaysia, instantly after the incident prima facie helps the plea of the prosecution that there’s a flight danger of the accused petitioner.” It additionally noticed that “he being an influential particular person, the chance of hampering or tampering with witnesses additionally can’t be denied at this stage”.
In its order, the court docket referred to the mass outcry that had adopted Garg’s dying and the outrage directed at Mahanta and the opposite accused.
“So, in a given scenario, the query arises as as to if [amid] public sentiments or outcry, the non-public liberty of the accused deserves curtailment. The reply on plain studying of the query is ‘no’. However bail liberty in such a scenario will depend on the exigencies of the circumstances. It’s attainable in a given scenario, the curiosity of the Society might outweigh the non-public liberty,” the order stated.
Story continues under this advert
The order additional stated, “However there should exist the triple check as talked about within the case of P Chidambaram vs CBI… like flight danger, tampering of proof and influencing of witnesses, coupled with the gravity of the offence and likewise the elements/tips given by the Hon’ble Supreme Courtroom within the case legal guidelines relied upon by the State respondents… and these grounds are prima facie current within the current case as mentioned above… Extra so, within the given scenario, the collective consciences and public order turn into paramount, and on the similar time, the protection of the accused can also be to be considered.”
