The Supreme Court today issued notice on a bail plea filed by event organiser Shyam Kanu Mahanta in a murder and cheating case in connection with the death of Assamese singer Zubeen Garg during a yacht trip in Singapore in September 2025.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the State of Assam, returnable at the end of July.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave for Mahanta submitted that there was no risk of the petitioner absconding. “Person dies of drowning. There is no flight risk, I don't have money, my passport is deposited,” he said.

The plea challenges a May 29 order of the Gauhati High Court rejecting Mahanta's application for bail. Mahanta was arrested on October 1, 2025 and has remained in custody since then.

The chargesheet alleges offences under Sections 3(6), 3(7), 3(8), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), 103(1) (murder), 105 (culpable homicide not amounting murder), 238 (causing disappearance of evidence), 308(2) (extortion), 318(4) (cheating) and 316(5) (criminal breach of trust) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Background

According to the prosecution, Garg drowned during the yacht outing in Singapore on September 19, 2025 . It has been alleged that the case is not one of a simple accidental drowning but of a conspiracy in which Garg was deliberately exposed to dangerous circumstances despite knowledge of his medical condition.

According to the prosecution, Mahanta, an organiser of the North East India Festival (NEIF) in Singapore, entered into a conspiracy with other accused that ultimately led to Garg's death. It is alleged that despite being aware that Garg suffered from epilepsy, had undergone alcohol de-addiction treatment and had been medically advised to avoid alcohol, fire and water-related activities, Mahanta supplied alcohol and organized a yacht trip for him.

The State's case is that Mahanta altered hotel room arrangements so that co-accused Amritprava Mahanta could stay with him and continuously provide alcohol, and failed to make adequate safety and medical arrangements for the singer. The prosecution further alleges that Mahanta knew about the yacht trip in advance, discussed it with its organisers and had multiple opportunities to prevent Garg from participating but did not do so.

It is also alleged that Mahanta instructed a witness to procure a bottle of Black and White whisky for Garg. The prosecution has relied on witness statements and post-mortem findings showing 333 mg of ethanol in Garg's body, contending that he was continuously supplied alcohol despite medical restrictions.

The State further contended before the High Court that Mahanta fled to Malaysia after the incident, necessitating a lookout circular and alerts to Interpol before he was apprehended at Delhi airport. Mahanta is also accused of attempting to destroy evidence by deleting chats and electronic data and of issuing contradictory public statements after Garg's death.

Mahanta denied the allegations. Before the High Court, he argued that he was merely a co-organiser of the festival, which was held under the aegis of the High Commission of India in Singapore. He contended that he had specifically requested the hotel not to provide alcohol to Garg and that the yacht trip was organised by others. He further claimed that the incident was an accidental drowning and he was not present on the yacht.

He also disputed the allegation that he was a flight risk, pointing out that his passport and other documents had been seized and asserting that his travel to Malaysia after the incident was a family visit from Singapore rather than an attempt to evade investigation.

Rejecting the bail plea, the Gauhati High Court held that the material collected during investigation prima facie indicated Mahanta's involvement in the alleged conspiracy. The Court observed that despite knowledge of Garg's health condition, there was no proper safety or medical arrangement for him and the yacht trip appeared to have been organised in consultation with Mahanta.

The High Court also accepted the prosecution's contention that the possibility of absconding and witness tampering could not be ruled out at that stage. It noted that the prosecution had cited 394 witnesses and that the case was still at the stage of consideration of charge.

Holding that Mahanta's custody of about eight months did not amount to prolonged incarceration and that a special court had already been constituted to conduct the trial, the High Court refused to grant bail.

Case no. – SLP (Crl.) 11523/2026

Case Title – Shyamkanu Mahanta v. State of Assam