Is Assam’s murder theory in Zubeen Garg case racing ahead of Singapore’s Coroner?

The Kamrup (Metro) chief judicial magistrate’s court on Tuesday, December 16, began the proceedings in the high-profile death case of singer and cultural icon Zubeen Garg, moving the matter from the investigation phase into the judicial arena. All seven accused were produced not in person, but via video conferencing, a calibrated decision by the court after the Assam Police’s Criminal Investigation Department (CID) warned of possible law-and-order complications if they were brought physically to the court complex.

The CID had filed a special plea seeking permission for virtual production, citing security and public order concerns. Government advocate Pradip Konwar said the court had initially directed physical production of all accused. However, after detailed consultations with the prosecution and the director of prosecution, the court agreed to a modified arrangement: the accused would appear through video link on the first day, and the process would remain strictly within the bounds of law while minimizing the risk of unrest or disruption outside the court.

The case entered its judicial phase last week when the Special Investigation Team (SIT) filed a voluminous chargesheet, reportedly running into around 12,000 pages. With the filing complete, December 16 hearing marked the first formal appearance of the accused before the magistrate in connection with the charges.

According to the SIT, the alleged incident took place on September 19, 2025, at a seaside location in Singapore. Investigators claim that Garg remained unconscious for nearly 75 minutes before medical assistance was sought, with an ambulance reportedly arriving after a significant delay.

The charge sheet alleges that excessive consumption of alcohol preceded the incident and that events unfolded during a late-night gathering followed by a yacht outing. The SIT has named seven accused, attributing roles ranging from arranging alcohol to encouraging what investigators describe as risky behaviour at sea.

As per the charge sheet, alcohol was allegedly supplied under the patronage of Shyamkanu Mahanta, while Amritaprabha Mahanta was purportedly tasked with ensuring its continued consumption throughout the night.

Investigators further allege that visual recordings were made during critical moments, with several images and videos recovered from the mobile phones of the accused.

The document also refers to the alleged involvement of Siddhartha Sharma, who is accused of provoking the singer to enter the sea while intoxicated, allegedly without adequate safety measures. Another accused, Shekharjyoti Goswami, is alleged to have facilitated Garg’s entry into the water without a life jacket.

The charge sheet additionally names suspended police officer Sandipan Garg, a relative of the singer, against whom charges under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) have reportedly been invoked. Sources cited in the report indicate that he may turn approver in the case, though this will be subject to judicial scrutiny.

Police officials have stressed that the charge sheet represents investigative findings and allegations, and that the matter is now before the court. Legal experts have pointed out that all accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that the claims outlined in the charge sheet will be tested during trial.

Five of the accused, festival organiser Shyamkanu Mahanta, Zubeen’s manager Siddharth Sharma, his brother and Assam Police Service officer Sandipon Garg, and personal security officers Nandeswar Bora and Paresh Baishya, are currently lodged in Baksa district jail. The remaining two, drummer Shekhar Jyoti Goswami and co-singer Amritprava Mahanta, are being held at the Haflong sub-jail in Dima Hasao district. All seven joined the proceedings via video conference from these facilities.

The prosecution made it clear that this virtual mode is a temporary accommodation. The permission applies only at this preliminary stage before committal. Once the case is transferred to the sessions court for full-fledged trial, all accused will have to appear physically, in line with the requirements of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The complainant side is expected to receive a complete copy of the chargesheet today. Only then will it become possible to measure, in concrete legal terms, how the 12,000-page document aligns, or clashes, with the narratives, rumours, and competing versions that have been circulating in the public sphere since Zubeen’s death.

The unfolding courtroom drama in Guwahati is not the only legal process that will shape the future of this case. A separate and crucial investigation is nearing completion in Singapore, where Zubeen Garg died. The final report of that investigation is expected to be submitted to the local Coroner’s Court in January 2026.

Once the report is placed before it, the Coroner’s Court in Singapore will have to answer a foundational question: was Zubeen’s death an accident, or does it bear the markers of homicide? If the court concludes that the death appears to be a case of murder, it will take up the matter, hold proceedings, and is expected to deliver its findings by around mid-March. If, however, the court finds no evidence suggestive of murder, it will refuse to treat the case as homicide and classify the death as natural or accidental.

It is worth recalling that Singapore’s investigators had initially indicated that there was “no foul play” in Zubeen’s death. Unlike in India, observers point out, political and extraneous pressures are widely perceived to have minimal sway over Singapore’s judicial processes. The Coroner’s verdict will therefore carry considerable moral and evidentiary weight, even if it does not formally bind Indian courts.

This sets up a potentially uncomfortable legal and political dilemma. The Assam SIT has already filed a murder case, constructing a theory of criminal conspiracy allegedly involving key figures such as Siddharth Sharma, Shyamkanu Mahanta, and Amritprava Mahanta. The chargesheet, central to Tuesday’s proceedings, is premised on the assertion that Zubeen’s death was not accidental but the result of a planned crime.

What happens, then, if the Singapore Coroner’s Court, after a full and independent examination, explicitly concludes that the death was not a case of murder?

That single determination could strike at the heart of the prosecution’s case in Assam. If the primary jurisdiction where the death occurred officially rules out homicide, the basis for a murder trial here risks appearing tenuous in the court of public opinion, even if Indian prosecutors continue to argue their own evidentiary grounds. The very concept of “conspiracy to commit murder” relies on there being a murder, or at least a legally sustainable allegation of one.

In that scenario, the 12,000-page chargesheet filed in Guwahati could come under intense scrutiny. Would the prosecution need to substantially revise, supplement, or even redraw its case theory? Would investigators have to prepare an entirely fresh chargesheet, re-framing the case under different sections if homicide is no longer tenable? Or would Indian courts proceed with the existing murder charges, leaning on domestic evidence and legal autonomy, regardless of Singapore’s conclusion?

Until that determination is made, the Zubeen Garg death case will continue to straddle two jurisdictions, two narratives, and two competing versions of truth—one written in a 12,000-page chargesheet in Assam, the other waiting to be scripted in a Singapore courtroom.