‘What if they are released?’: Garima Garg raises concerns after Amritprabha Mahanta gets bail in Zubeen Garg case

The Gauhati High Court has granted bail to Amritprabha Mahanta, an accused in the case linked music icon Zubeen Garg’s death in Singapore, citing the absence of a prima facie case against her in the materials examined so far. Reacting to the decision, Garg’s wife, Garima Saikia Garg, raised concerns over the implications of the release and said that hearings involving other accused, including Shyamkanu Mahanta, would follow.

In her reaction to Amritprabha Mahanta’s bail, Garima questioned whether the family and others seeking justice for the singer could feel secure if the remaining accused were also released. She referred to an alleged attempt by Shyamkanu Mahanta to forge documents while in jail and pointed out that an investigation into the incident at the Inspector General (IG) level had already been announced.

“If an accused could dare to do so while still in jail, what might he do if released?” Garima asked, expressing apprehension over the possibility of other accused obtaining bail.

She further alleged that those involved were capable of destroying a personality like Zubeen Garg and questioned whether the safety of those seeking justice could be ensured if the accused were released. Her remarks come amid continued public attention on the legal proceedings surrounding the singer’s death.

The Gauhati High Court, in its October 9 order, allowed Amritprava Mahanta’s bail application after examining the investigation materials and the testimony of witnesses recorded during the ongoing trial. Justice Pranjal Das observed that the materials available at this stage did not establish a prima facie case against her in connection with the alleged conspiracy and murder.

Mahanta, who was arrested on October 3, 2025, had remained in custody for approximately a year. The court took into account the length of her undertrial detention, the progress of the trial, the absence of previous criminal antecedents and her status as a woman while deciding the bail application.

The order noted that 124 prosecution witnesses had been examined by the time the court considered the application. It also observed that the allegations against Mahanta in the charge sheet did not receive sufficient support from the investigation materials examined for the purpose of bail adjudication.

The prosecution had alleged that Mahanta was part of a conspiracy to murder Garg and had a role in ensuring that the singer consumed alcohol before a yacht trip in Singapore. However, the court noted that the witness statements and documents it examined did not establish that she had administered alcohol to the singer or played the alleged role in organising the trip or encouraging him to swim in the sea without a life jacket.

The court clarified that its observations were confined to the question of bail and should not be treated as a final determination of guilt or innocence, which remains subject to the ongoing trial.

Mahanta has been directed to furnish a bail bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties of the same amount, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court. The conditions require her to cooperate with the remaining trial, refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and obtain the trial court’s permission before travelling abroad. The order also states that bail may be cancelled if its conditions are violated.

The case stems from Garg’s death in Singapore on September 19, 2025, where he had travelled to attend a music festival. Following complaints alleging that he had been murdered, the Assam Police transferred the investigation to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), which registered a case and constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT). A charge sheet was subsequently filed against seven accused, and a special fast-track court was constituted to conduct the trial.

Garima’s reaction has brought renewed focus to the concerns of Garg’s family as the trial proceeds and bail proceedings involving other accused remain a matter of public interest. Her questions centre on the implications of further releases, while the legal proceedings will determine the allegations against each accused on the basis of evidence presented before the court.