The Gauhati High Court has granted bail to Amritprava Mahanta, one of the accused in the alleged murder of Assamese singer Zubeen Garg, holding that the evidence collected during the investigation and testimonies recorded during the trial had not established a prima facie case against her.
Justice Pranjal Das observed that keeping Mahanta behind bars despite the absence of material supporting the allegations would be unjust, particularly given that she had spent nearly a year in custody as an undertrial.
“Considering the nature of the materials found on record so far, with regard to A-4 Amritprava Mahanta, it would be a travesty of justice to deny her bail at this stage,” the Court observed in Amritprava Mahanta v. State of Assam.
Garg died in Singapore on September 19, 2025, following an incident during a yacht trip. The case was subsequently investigated by the Assam Police’s Criminal Investigation Department, which filed a chargesheet against seven people in connection with the alleged murder.
Mahanta was accused of being part of a conspiracy to kill the singer by supplying him with alcohol despite allegedly knowing about his medical condition, including epilepsy and seizures.
However, the High Court found that the evidence examined so far did not substantiate this allegation. None of the 250 witnesses questioned during the investigation reportedly stated that Mahanta had served alcohol to Garg, administered it to him or forced him to consume it.
The Court also noted that the statements of 124 prosecution witnesses examined during the trial had failed to support the accusation.
Further, the investigation material did not indicate that Mahanta had arranged Garg’s visit to Singapore, organised the yacht trip or encouraged him to swim without a life jacket.
In light of these findings, Justice Das concluded that the material available at this stage did not establish a prima facie case of Mahanta’s involvement in a conspiracy to murder the singer.
The Court also underlined that judicial decisions must remain grounded in evidence rather than public pressure or prevailing sentiment.
“A court has to be conscious of society’s sense of justice, but cannot be captive to it,” the judge observed.
While granting bail, the High Court considered Mahanta’s prolonged undertrial detention, the absence of any criminal antecedents and the statutory provisions relating to bail for women.
She was directed to furnish a bail bond of ₹50,000 along with two sureties. The Court also imposed conditions requiring her to cooperate with the trial, refrain from influencing witnesses and obtain permission before travelling abroad.
The High Court clarified that its observations were limited to the consideration of bail and would not influence the final determination of the case, which remains pending trial.