Interest Of Society May Outweigh Personal Liberty Why Accused In Zubeen Garg Case Was Refused Bail

While rejecting the bail, the court observed that “it is possible in a given situation, the interest of society may outweigh personal liberty”, and also cited other grounds, such as “flight risk”, the risk of evidence tampering and influencing of witnesses, and “the gravity of the offence”.

Mahanta is one of seven accused arrested in connection with Garg’s death in September last year, and one of the four against whom there are murder charges.

On Thursday, the fast-track court hearing the case had framed charges against all seven on the offences under which they had been chargesheeted. The lower court has so far rejected all the bail pleas in connection with the case, and the fast-track court had on Friday rejected the bail plea of another accused, Shekhar Jyoti Goswami. Mahanta’s is the first case in which the Gauhati High Court has heard a bail plea. The fast-track court had earlier rejected his bail plea on April 30. He was the organiser of the Northeast India Festival, for which Garg had gone to Singapore as a “cultural brand ambassador”.

Garg died on September 19, 2025, while in Singapore. Before the festival began, he went for a yacht outing, reportedly organised by members of the Assam Association Singapore. He died after losing consciousness while swimming during that outing, and a subsequent investigation found that he was in a state of intoxication at the time.

The state respondents to the bail plea had argued that Mahanta was allegedly party to a “conspiracy” and “forced” Garg to attend the festival in Singapore, deliberately got him drunk and did not prevent him from attending the party on the yacht despite his medical history of epilepsy and medical instructions to avoid alcohol, water and fire.

Mahanta’s counsel argued that he is innocent and not party to a conspiracy, that Garg had been drinking of his own volition, and that he had not organised the yacht outing, but had instead instructed the organiser to bring Garg back in time for a function in the evening.

After hearing the arguments of both sides and going through the materials provided by the investigating officer, the Gauhati High Court Bench of Justice Mitali Thakuria said in her order, “Prima facie, it is seen that in spite of full knowledge with regard to the health condition of the deceased, Zubeen Garg, there was no proper safety arrangement or medical facilities for the deceased…”

“Without going into the other detailed merit of the case, prima facie, it is seen that there was a conspiracy of the petitioner along with other co-accused persons… because inspite of having knowledge about the health condition of the deceased, Zubeen Garg, he never prohibited or restrained the organiser of the yacht trip not to take Zubeen Garg on the trip wherein water activities were organised in the deep sea… rather, with the consultation of the present accused petitioner, the entire trip was organised, which prima facie reveals that he played an active part in the said conspiracy,” the order said.

Noting that Mahanta had travelled to Malaysia after the incident before flying into Delhi, where he was arrested after the case was registered, the court observed, “His previous conduct of fleeing away to Malaysia, immediately after the incident prima facie supports the plea of the prosecution that there is a flight risk of the accused petitioner.” It also observed that “he being an influential person, the probability of hampering or tampering with witnesses also cannot be denied at this stage”.

In its order, the court referred to the mass outcry that had followed Garg’s death and the outrage directed at Mahanta and the other accused.

“So, in a given situation, the question arises as to whether [amid] public sentiments or outcry, the personal liberty of the accused deserves curtailment. The answer on plain reading of the question is ‘no’. But bail liberty in such a situation depends on the exigencies of the cases. It is possible in a given situation, the interest of the Society may outweigh the personal liberty,” the order said.

The order further said, “But there must exist the triple test as mentioned in the case of P Chidambaram vs CBI… like flight risk, tampering of evidence and influencing of witnesses, coupled with the gravity of the offence and also the factors/guidelines given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case laws relied upon by the State respondents… and these grounds are prima facie present in the present case as discussed above… More so, in the given situation, the collective consciences and public order become paramount, and at the same time, the safety of the accused is also to be taken into consideration.”

Sukrita Baruah is a Principal Correspondent for The Indian Express, based in Guwahati. From this strategic hub, she provides comprehensive, ground-level coverage of India's North East, a region characterized by its complex ethnic diversity, geopolitical significance, and unique developmental challenges. Expertise and Experience Ethnic & Social Dynamics: Deep-dive coverage of regional conflicts (such as the crisis in Manipur) and peace-building efforts. Border & Geopolitics: Tracking developments along India’s international borders and their impact on local communities. Governance & Policy: Reporting on state elections, tribal council decisions, and the implementation of central schemes in the North East. Specialized Education Background: Prior to her current role, Sukrita was a dedicated Education Correspondent for The Indian Express in Delhi. This experience provided her with a sharp analytical lens for: Policy Analysis: Evaluating the National Education Policy (NEP) and university-level reforms. Student Affairs: Covering high-stakes stories regarding campus politics, national entrance exams, and the challenges within the primary and secondary education sectors. ... Read More

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram