The Gauhati High Court has granted conditional bail to Amritprava Mahanta, one of the seven accused individuals in the high-profile death case of legendary Assamese singer and cultural icon Zubeen Garg. After 369 days of undertrial detention, Justice Pranjal Das directed that the petitioner be released upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹50,000, accompanied by two sureties of the same amount. The ruling, delivered on October 9, 2026, concludes that the evidence currently on record fails to establish a prima facie case against Mahanta regarding the serious charges of conspiracy and murder filed by the Assam Police.

The court’s decision arrives amid ongoing proceedings before a Special Fast-Track Court, which was specifically constituted to handle the day-to-day trial of the case. While acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, Justice Das emphasized that the judiciary must remain anchored in legal evidence rather than public sentiment. The court highlighted a stark disconnect between the chargesheet’s assertions and the materials collected during the exhaustive investigation conducted by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) of the Assam Police.

Evaluating the Evidence Against the Conspiracy Allegations The prosecution's case rests on the theory that Mahanta, along with other co-accused, orchestrated a conspiracy to murder Zubeen Garg while on a trip to Singapore for a music festival in September 2025. Specifically, authorities alleged that Mahanta was tasked with ensuring the singer consumed excessive alcohol despite his known medical history, which included epilepsy and seizure disorders. However, upon reviewing the testimony of 124 prosecution witnesses examined during the trial and the statements of approximately 250 witnesses recorded during the investigation, the court found no credible evidence to support these claims.

"The prima facie case of A4 being involved in conspiracy to murder the victim is not made out from the investigation materials and trial testimony so far," the court observed. Records indicate that none of the witnesses, whether interviewed by police or during judicial testimony , claimed that Mahanta served, forced, or procured alcohol for the singer. Furthermore, documentary evidence and chain-of-custody documents failed to link the petitioner to the organization of the Singapore visit, the yacht arrangements, or the circumstances surrounding the fatal swimming incident where the singer, while reportedly intoxicated, drowned.

Balancing Public Sentiment with Legal Justice Justice Das addressed the complex tension between the immense public grief surrounding Zubeen Garg’s untimely demise and the court’s constitutional mandate. While recognizing that the singer’s life was "extraordinarily precious," the order clarified that the role of the court is to adjudicate strictly on the evidence presented in the trial.

"Society’s sense of justice is undoubtedly of profound importance. Nevertheless, the courts of law have to primarily focus on ‘ legal justice ’," Justice Das noted. He further observed that although a court must be conscious of the social impact of a case, it "cannot be captive to it." By emphasizing that judicial conclusions must be derived from records rather than suspicion or inferences unsupported by facts, the court underscored the necessity of protecting the rights of the accused during the lengthy trial process.

The judgment also referenced the special bail provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) for women, noting that the petitioner's status as a woman, combined with her lack of criminal antecedents and the significant length of her pre-trial incarceration, favored the grant of bail. The court suggested that keeping an individual in custody for over a year without a substantiated prima facie case could result in a "travesty of justice."

Ongoing Trial and Strict Conditions of Release The court explicitly stated that its observations regarding the lack of evidence against Mahanta are strictly limited to the adjudication of the bail application. These findings do not constitute an opinion on the merits of the ongoing trial, which will proceed to determine the culpability of all accused parties. The trial court remains the ultimate authority to examine the allegations against the other six individuals currently in custody.

To ensure the integrity of the judicial process, the court imposed several rigorous conditions for Mahanta’s release. She is mandated to cooperate fully with the ongoing trial, refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and refrain from engaging in any self-harm. Crucially, the court directed that she must not leave her location without prior permission from the Trial Court, ensuring her availability for subsequent hearings.

The release marks a significant procedural development in a case that has dominated public discourse in Assam since September 2025. Following the granting of bail, Mahanta was released from the Haflong sub-jail, where she had been held for the duration of her remand. The legal proceedings in the case, including the trial of the other accused who remain in state custody, are expected to continue, with the prosecution still working to present its voluminous documentation and list of witnesses. The court’s order serves as a reminder of the procedural safeguards within the criminal justice system, maintaining that bail is the default rule and custodial detention must remain an exception, provided the accused does not pose a risk to the administration of justice.