Zubeen Garg Death Case: Supreme Court Seeks Assam Police Response on Organiser’s Bail Plea

The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Assam Police on the bail petition filed by event organiser Shyam Kanu Mahanta in Shyamkanu Mahanta v. State of Assam, concerning the death of Assamese singer Zubeen Garg during a yacht outing in Singapore.

A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the State of Assam on June 23. The matter has been made returnable towards the end of July 2026.

Mahanta has challenged the Gauhati High Court’s May 29 order refusing to release him on bail. He was arrested on October 1, 2025, and has remained in judicial custody since then.

Appearing for Mahanta, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave argued that his client was unlikely to flee. He told the Court, “Person dies of drowning. There is no flight risk, I don’t have money, my passport is deposited.”

The criminal case arose from Garg’s death during a yacht trip in Singapore on September 19, 2025. While Mahanta maintains that the singer accidentally drowned, investigators claim that the circumstances surrounding the incident indicate a wider conspiracy.

The chargesheet invokes several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including those relating to murder, culpable homicide, criminal conspiracy, destruction of evidence, extortion, cheating and criminal breach of trust.

According to the prosecution, Mahanta was associated with the organisation of the North East India Festival in Singapore. Investigators allege that he knew about Garg’s medical condition, including epilepsy and previous alcohol de-addiction treatment, but still facilitated circumstances that endangered the singer.

The State claims that alcohol was repeatedly supplied to Garg despite medical advice requiring him to avoid it and stay away from water-related activities. Prosecutors have relied upon witness accounts and post-mortem findings that allegedly detected 333 milligrams of ethanol in his body.

Mahanta is also accused of knowing about the yacht trip beforehand, discussing its arrangements and failing to ensure appropriate medical and safety precautions. Investigators further allege that he deleted electronic communications and made inconsistent public statements following the singer’s death.

The prosecution had also claimed that Mahanta travelled to Malaysia after the incident, leading authorities to issue a lookout circular and alerts to Interpol. He was subsequently apprehended at Delhi airport.

Mahanta has denied these allegations. He contends that other individuals arranged the yacht outing, that he was not present aboard the vessel and that he had asked the hotel not to serve alcohol to Garg.

He has also maintained that his journey to Malaysia was a family visit rather than an attempt to evade investigators. His passport and other travel documents have since been taken into custody.

While rejecting bail, the Gauhati High Court found prima facie material indicating Mahanta’s alleged involvement. It also considered the possible risks of absconding and influencing witnesses, noting that the prosecution had named 394 witnesses and that charges were yet to be considered.

The High Court further held that eight months in custody did not constitute prolonged imprisonment, particularly when a special court had been established for the trial. The Supreme Court will now consider the State’s response before examining Mahanta’s request for bail.