Page No.# 1/36 GAHC010089582026 2026:GAU-AS:7459 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1221/2026 SHYAMKANU MAHANTA S/O LT LILA MAHANTA, R/O VILL KARBI PATH, NAMGHAR BYELANE, ZOO NARANGI ROAD, PS NARANGI, PO SATGAON, DIST KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN 781027 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. K DAS, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR P TALUKDAR(INFORMANT),MR W R MEDHI(INFORMANT) Page No.# 2/36 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 29-05-2026 Heard Mr. Pran Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Chetia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam as well as Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Senior Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent. Also heard Mr. W. R. Medhi and Mr. P. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Shyamkanu Mahanta who was arrested on 01.10.2025 in connection with Sessions Case No. 256/2025 pending before the Exclusive Fast Track Sessions Judge, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati corresponding to Charge Sheet No. 14/2025 dated 12.12.2025 submitted against the present petitioner under Sections 3(6)/3(7)/3(8)/61(2)/103(1)/105/238/308(2)/318(4)/ 316(5) of BNS, 2023 arising out of CID Police Station FIR No. 18/2025 dated 20.09.2025 registered under Sections 61(2)/105/106(1) of BNS, 2023 with added Section 103 of BNS, 2023. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSION 3. It is submitted by Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel that on the basis of several complaints and petitions i.e., 160 numbers of complaints filed across the State, this case has been registered under Sections 3(6)/3(7)/3(8)/61(2) read with Section 103(1) BNS, 2023 and substantive offences under Section Page No.# 3/36 308(2)/318(4)/238 of BNS, 2023 alleging inter-alia that the accused persons including the present petitioner, who was the organizer of the North East India Festival is the key person of the organization (Trend MMS) and it is further alleged that in conspiracy with the other accused persons, the present petitioner is also responsible for the acts and commissions which ultimately led to the death of singer Zubeen Garg. 4. 4. That basically the following allegations have been brought against the present petitioner showing his involvement in the alleged offence:- (i) giving the victim a bottle of whiskey against the medical advice, knowing fully well that it can be fatal; (ii) not giving Amirtprava co-accused a separate room to stay and engaging her to supply alcohol to Zubeen continuously; (iii) not informing the organizer of the Yacht party about the medical condition of the deceased; (iv) despite meeting the managing team of the victim, even in the morning of the incident makes no arrangements for the safety, security and medical health of the victim, nor informed them to cancel the trip; (v) sends the Assam Association President to the Yacht but did not ask him to cancel the event despite the medical advisory of the victims doctor that he is a patient of epilepsy; (vi) making no medical arrangement to save the victim and was brought to Ambulance after 75 minutes after the incident. 5. That the petitioner earlier also organized such kind of events in Vietnam, Delhi etc., with the consultation of the higher authority. It is submitted that he was only a co-organizer of the event which was scheduled to be held in Singapore on the mark of 68th Anniversary of India Singapore Bilateral Relationship and the High Commission of India decided to organize the 4th Page No.# 4/36 North East India Festival in Singapore from 19th of September, 2025 to 21st of September, 2025 with participants from the North Eastern States. The event at Singapore was actually organized under the aegis of Union of India as well as the Government of Assam and the petitioner was merely a co-organizer of the event organized by the High Commission of India. However, all permissions, compliances, invitations, finalization of venue for the event etc., were all handled by the High Commission of India, Singapore. 6. To substantiate his plea, some Annexures have also been annexed along with the additional affidavit which shows that the letters were issued from the High Commission of India, Singapore for participation in North East India Festival in Singapore to different North Eastern States which has accordingly been annexed along with the petition and in all the invitation letters, it is seen that the invitations were from one Dr. Shilpak Ambule on behalf of the Office of High Commission of India, Singapore. Some of the North Eastern States accordingly gave their responses to the said invitation. The petitioner being the co-organizer of the North East India Festival Event, he simply made a request and invited Zubeen Garg being a Brand Ambassador. 7. That the arrangements was made in Hotel Pan Pacific wherein he being the organizer, issued letter through G-mail requesting the Manager for all arrangement and it is requested to the Hotel Manager to provide complimentary food, but requested not to provide any liquor/drinks during his stay. Thus, annexing those letters, it is submitted by Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel that it was specifically requested from his side to the hotel management not to provide any drinks during his stay at Hotel Pan Pacific. 8. That the hotel authority accordingly prepared the room chart which has Page No.# 5/36 also been annexed along with the petition, wherefrom it is seen that 4 (four) rooms were provided to deceased Zubeen Garg and his team and one single room was provided to Zubeen Garg and another room was also managed in another hotel as there were four persons who accompanied him. 9. That the hotel management who provided the room chart and all 5 members including the deceased Zubeen Garg was provided with five numbers of rooms, four in Hotel Pan Pacific and one in another hotel. Thus, it is not the case that he asked the co-accused Amritprava to stay with Zubeen Garg in the same hotel as alleged against him. Further, from the letter issued to the Manager, it reveals that he requested the hotel management authority not to provide any liquor/drink to deceased Zubeen Garg during his stay. 10. That one of the witness i.e., Tanmoy Phukan who was along with the deceased Zubeen Garg in the Yacht party had made all arrangements and he also received deceased Zubeen Garg along with his team members in the Airport and dropped them to Hotel Pan Pacific, wherein, arrangements for stay was made. It is also pointed out by Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel that from the statement of this witness, it is also seen that he consumed liquor in the car on the way to Hotel Pan Pacific as Zubeen Garg and Amritprava Mahanta accompanied him in his car and upon reaching the hotel room, he met the organizers i.e., the present petitioner and when deceased Zubeen Garg had a drink with the petitioner Shyamkanu Mahanta in the hotel restaurant. 11. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel stressed on the point that as per wish and choice of late Zubeen Garg, the Yacht party was organized. There is no role played by the present accused petitioner in organizing the Yacht party, nor he was present in the said party along with late deceased Zubeen Garg. The Yacht trip was not the idea of the present petitioner and it was exclusively the idea of Page No.# 6/36 deceased Zubeen Garg along with other witnesses who joined him in the Yacht party. 12. That from the statement made by this witness it also reveals that he had a talk with the present accused petitioner, wherein, he stated that the function will start at 07:00 p.m. and Zubeen needs to be there as he is the key person (Brand Ambassador). Thus, it is the petitioner who asked the organizer of the Yacht party to bring deceased Zubeen Garg in the function sharply by 07:00 p.m. He further stated that the organizer of the Yacht party also made a Whatsapp Group wherein they shared about the food and drinks to be brought along with the person who is participating in the Yacht party. The present petitioner was not a member in the said Whatsapp Group, nor, he attended the Yacht party along with deceased Zubeen Garg and his team members. 13. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel also emphasized on the statement made by another witness, namely, Abhimanyu Talukdar who also made a detailed description as to what had happened on the day of the incident, i.e., on 19.09.2025 and from his statement also it reveals that he picked up Zubeen Garg and his team from the hotel Pan Pacific and he also had a drink with deceased Zubeen Garg. Thereafter, he described as to how the incident had happened and without even wearing a life jacket how the deceased Zubeen Garg jumped into the sea to swim and he also saw that the other witnesses also trying to get him to wear life jacket and then only the unfortunate incident had happened. However, from his statement it is also seen that all the persons in the Yacht had tried their best to bring him immediately to hospital and the deceased Zubeen Garg was also provided with some preliminary treatment in the Yacht itself. 14. He also stressed on the statement made by co-accused Shekhar Jyoti Page No.# 7/36 Goswami and tried to emphasize on the point that the deceased Zubeen Garg took alcohol from the morning of 17.09.2025 when they started for their journey to Singapore. On the basis of the statements of all witnesses, it is submitted that it was only an accident and there was no negligence on the part of the present petitioner, who was not even in the Yacht party to offer alcohol to the deceased Zubeen Garg, nor he made the room arrangement as alleged against him. 15. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel further stressed on the point that his earlier bail application was rejected by the learned Special Judge basically on two ground that there is flight risk of the present petitioner with observation that he avoided police arrest and did not cooperate in the investigation for which lookout notice was to be issued against him. In that context, Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel also annexed the notice issued to him through G-mail which was received by him as issued under Section 179 of BNSS asking him to appear before the Investigating Officer. In reply, the petitioner had submitted that he is interested to appear before the CID for enquiry, but all his bank accounts were frozen including his daughters bank account and he also requested the officials to de-freeze his daughter’s bank account so that necessary arrangement for tickets can be made to appear before the enquiry. 16. That in connection with another notice, the accused gave reply to the Investigating Officer stating his date of travel from Singapore via Kolkata or Delhi and in Delhi Airport itself he was arrested by the investigating team. Thus, there cannot be any reason to issue any lookout notice against him, nor there is any flight risk of the accused petitioner, rather, he himself took all the initiative to appear before the office of the CID/enquiry team. 17. That the accused petitioner is in custody for the last 8 (eight) months and Page No.# 8/36 till date the charge is not yet framed by the learned Special Judge. More so, there are 394 numbers of cited witnesses and other seizure documents and materials exhibits which are to be exhibited at the time of trial. The numbers of the witnesses and the exhibits clearly reveals that it will not be possible even to complete the trial within 1(one) year, even if, day-to-day hearing is taken up by the learned Special Judge. Further, there is no possibility of fleeing away or flight risk as the Passport and other relevant documents were already been seized by police during investigation. At the same time, there cannot be any tempering or hampering with the witnesses as the case has already been charge sheeted and the statements of relevant witnesses have also been recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation of the case. 18. Accordingly, Mr. Bora submitted that from the statements made by the witnesses as relied by him and the other circumstances of this case, it is fully established that there was no role of the present accused petitioner in the unfortunate incident and he was simply working as a co-organizer of North East India Festival under the aegis of High Commission of India, Singapore. He rather, made request to the authority concerned for safe and proper arrangement for the deceased Zubeen Garg. There is no statement or evidence that he offered any drink or whiskey bottle to the deceased, rather, he made a request to the hotel authority not to provide any drinks to deceased Zubeen Garg. He was also not the organizer of the Yacht party, nor he was a member of the Yacht party, rather he asked the team to bring Zubeen Garg to the function sharply at 07:00 p.m. which was organized on the day of the incident, i.e., on 19.09.2025. 19. That in the given circumstances, there cannot be any reason for further custodial detention of the present petitioner, rather his further custodial Page No.# 9/36 detention will violate the Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. 20. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427 and emphasized on para 66, 67, 69 and 70 of the said judgment wherein it has been expressed by the view by the Hon’ble Apex Court that human liberty is a precious constitutional value which is undoubtedly subject to regulation by validity and enacted legislation. Para 67 of the said judgment read as under: “67.Human liberty is a precious constitutional value, which is undoubtedly subject to regulation by validly enacted legislation. As such, the citizen is subject to the edicts of criminal law and procedure. Section 482 recognizes the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as are necessary to give effect to the provisions of the CrPC ―or prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice‖. Decisions of this court require the High (2005) 8 SCC 21 (2010) 14 SCC 496 (2012) 1 SCC 40 Criminal Appeal No. 1605 of 2019 decided on 22 October 2019 PART J Courts, in exercising the jurisdiction entrusted to them under Section 482, to act with circumspection. In emphasising that the High Court must exercise this power with a sense of restraint, the decisions of this Court are founded on the basic principle that the due enforcement of criminal law should not be obstructed by the accused taking recourse to artifices and strategies. The public interest in ensuring the due investigation of crime is protected by ensuring that the inherent power of the High Court is exercised with caution. That indeed is one – and a significant - end of the spectrum. The other end of the spectrum is equally important: the recognition by Section 482 of the power inhering in the High Court to prevent the abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice is a valuable safeguard for protecting liberty. The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898 was enacted by a legislature which was not subject to constitutional rights and limitations; yet it recognized the inherent power in Section 561A. Post- Independence, the recognition by Parliament37 of the inherent power of the High Court must be construed as an aid to preserve the constitutional value of liberty. The writ of liberty runs through the fabric of the Constitution. The need to ensure the fair investigation of crime is undoubtedly important in itself, because it protects at one level the rights of the victim and, at a more fundamental level, the societal interest in ensuring that crime is investigated and dealt with in accordance with law. On the other hand, the misuse of the criminal law is a matter of which the High Court and the lower Courts in this country must be alive. In the present case, the High Court could not but have been cognizant of the specific ground which was raised before it by the appellant that he was being Section 482 of the CrPC 1973 PART J made a target as a part of a series of occurrences which have been taking place since April 2020. The specific case of the appellant is that he has been targeted because his Page No.# 10/36 opinions on his television channel are unpalatable to authority. Whether the appellant has established a case for quashing the FIR is something on which the High Court will take a final view when the proceedings are listed before it but we are clearly of the view that in failing to make even a prima facie evaluation of the FIR, the High Court abdicated its constitutional duty and function as a protector of liberty. Courts must be alive to the need to safeguard the public interest in ensuring that the due enforcement of criminal law is not obstructed. The fair investigation of crime is an aid to it. Equally it is the duty of courts across the spectrum – the district judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court – to ensure that the criminal law does not become a weapon for the selective harassment of citizens. Courts should be alive to both ends of the spectrum – the need to ensure the proper enforcement of criminal law on the one hand and the need, on the other, of ensuring that the law does not become a ruse for targeted harassment. Liberty across human eras is as tenuous as tenuous can be. Liberty survives by the vigilance of her citizens, on the cacophony of the media and in the dusty corridors of courts alive to the rule of (and not by) law. Yet, much too often, liberty is a casualty when one of these components is found wanting.” 21. It is also the constitutional right of the accused or an Under Trial Prisoner to have a speedy trial, which otherwise would violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 22. To substantiate his plea the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in the case of Union of India Vs. K. A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 decided by a three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court and basically emphasized on para-15 of the said judgment, which read as under: 15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India12, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail. 23. In that context he also relied on another decision of Hon’ble Apex Court passed by a Division Bench in case Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Page No.# 11/36 Javed Ansari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2024) 8 SCC 293 and in para 42 of the said judgment also the Division Bench relied on the judgment of the three Judges Bench passed in the case of Nazeeb (supra) as stated above. Para 42 of the said judgment also speaks about the constitutional right of the accused, which read as under: 42. This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part. In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail. But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence. In any view of the matter, K.A. Najeeb (supra) being rendered by a three Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us. 24. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel further relied on a recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi Vs. National Investigating Agency passed in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1090/2026 dated 18.05.2026 and emphasized on para 20.1; 20.2; 21.1; 23.2; 24; 27.2; 35 and 38 of the said judgment and submitted that in this case it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that at the stage of granting bail, a detail examination of evidence and elaborated documentation and merits of the case is not warranted and bail should not be denied merely because of sentiments of the community against the accused. 25. He further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed that liberty granted by the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only the due procedure and fairness, but also access to justice and speedy trial. Under trials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Once it is obvious that Page No.# 12/36 timely trial would not be possible and the accused has sacrifice incarceration for a significant period of time, the Court would ordinarily obligated to enlarge them on bail. It is further in para 23.2 the Court also held that bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though, there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude and the Bench also at para 23.2 held as under: 24. It is trite law that an accused is entitled to a speedy trial. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that an accused or an undertrial has a fundamental right to speedy trial which is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the alleged offence is a serious one, it is all the more necessary for the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously. When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused undertrial on the ground that the charges are very serious. Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude. 26. Also relied on para 35 of the said judgment, which read as under: 35. The often invoked phrase ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ is not merely an empty statutory slogan flowing from the CrPC as Gurwinder has stated. It is a constitutional principle flowing from Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and the presumption of innocence which is the cornerstone of any civilised society governed by the rule of law. Statutes may undoubtedly calibrate the manner in which that principle is applied, particularly in cases involving national security or terrorist offences for which the UAP Act is meant, but those cannot altogether invert the constitutional relationship between liberty and detention. The statutory embargo of Section 43-D(5) must remain a circumscribed restriction that operates subject to the guarantee of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, we have no manner of doubt in stating that even under the UAP Act, ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’; of course, in an appropriate case, bail can be denied having regard to the facts of that particular case. 27. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel referring to the above judgments, submitted that in the present case the accused petitioner is in jail hazot since last 8 (eight) months and till date charge has not yet been framed by the prosecution and that apart there are 394 number of listed witnesses and thus, the disposal of the case within a reasonable period of 1 (one) year also cannot be expected, even if day-to-day hearing is taken up and in that case also, it will not be humanly possible to dispose of the matter even within 2(two) years. Page No.# 13/36 28. Mr. Bora accordingly submitted that considering this aspect of the case, the right of the accused petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India vis-à-vis considering the fact that there is no prima facie evidence against the accused petitioner, even for framing of charge against him under the said sections of law as referred above. The basic allegation brought against the petitioner of providing alcohol to deceased Zubeen Garg giving same room with co-accused Amritprava Mahanta organizing the Yacht party etc., are not there against the present petitioner. More so, he cannot be under the flight risk as his Passport, Aadhar Card, Pan Card are seized by police which are still in the custody of the police and all the bank accounts of the petitioner including the bank accounts of this wife is also seized/freezed by the prosecution. The accused being the permanent resident of his addressed locality will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when the date is fixed for hearing. RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS 29. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam appearing for the State respondents submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner to establish a case against the petitioner under Sections 3(6)/3(7)/3(8)/61(2) read with Section 103(1) of BNS and substantive offences under Sections 308(2)/318(4)/238 BNS. 30. Mr. Saikia, learned AG basically stressed on the charge sheet which is in Volume-VI of the record and emphasized on the evidence which establishes a case against the present petitioner Shayamkanu Mahanta at the time of filing charge sheet and also on the statement made by the witnesses as well as other relevant documents which were seized during the time of investigation. 31. That during the investigation it has come out that the petitioner projected Page No.# 14/36 deceased Zubeen Garg as Brand Ambassador of North East India Festival in India and abroad and from the statement of multiple witnesses it reveals that deceased Zubeeng Garg did not want to go to the said Festival, but the present petitioner was pressurizing him and he was forced to go there and in that case he also threatened that he would otherwise commit suicide and implicate Zubeen, if he does not go to the said Festival, which has been organized by the present petitioner. The deceased Zubeen Garg was also forced to make a video for promoting the said event. During investigation it has also come out that the present petitioner had cheated the deceased Zubeen Garg over a decade by soliciting fund and customers in the name of Zubeen Garg and not paying him single penny for this. 32. That during investigation it has come out from the statement made by the witnesses that though the present petitioner claimed that deceased Zubeen Garg is the Brand Ambassador of NEIF, but he never shared any profit generated by his cultural event, nor made any agreement depriving Zubeen of monetary benefits associated with Brand Ambassador of cultural events. From the statement of one witness, namely Rahul Gautam Sarma it is seen that deceased Zubeen Garg hated to go in the event organized by Shyamkanu and out of frustration he also uttered some bad words for the present petitioner. The witness Kishore Baruah also reveals that deceased Zubeen Garg told him that he will throw Shyamkanu Mahanta and Siddharth Sharma (one of the co-accused) out of his life and he even publically cursed accused Shyamkanu Mahanta. Accordingly it is held that during investigation that the present petitioner is liable to be prosecuted under Sections 308(2)/318(4) of BNS for cheating deceased Zubeen Garg. 33. That it is the plea of the accused petitioner that he was never involved in Page No.# 15/36 the room arrangement and everything was arranged by the Manager of Hotel Pan Pacific at Singapore and accordingly, they had allotted the room to deceased Zubeen Garg as well as his team members. But from the room arrangement chart seized from the present accused petitioner, wherefrom it is seen that initially deceased Zubeen Garg was to share room with one Anuj Barua, but later after reaching Singapore, room arrangements were changed by the petitioner in conspiracy with Siddhartha Sarma and shared room was booked for deceased Zubeen Garg and Amritprava Mahanta. Thus, during investigation it was exclusively proved that the present petitioner through Trend MMS had indeed blackmailed deceased Zubeen Garg to perform in NEIF, but was completely ignored for his safety, security and medical requirements from the time he went to attend his event till the time he comes back. Though as an organizer he was fully responsible to provide medical facilities and safety and security to deceased Zubeen Garg who was stated to be the Brand Ambassador in the said Festival. That apart, the present petitioner was well aware about the medical history of deceased Zubeen Garg and he was all aware as to what doctor had advised for deceased Zubeen Garg. He was completely aware that deceased Zubeen Garg should not given alcohol as he had undergone an alcohol de-addiction programme and also suffering from epilepsy and the doctor prevented him not to go near water and fire and also to avoid alcohol. 34. That though it is the claim of the present petitioner that he was not involved in room arrangement and everything was done by the Manager of Pan Pacific Hotel at Singapore, but from the statement made by one Raktim Roy, it is seen that room arrangement in Hotel Pan Pacific was made exclusively under the control of the present petitioner Shyamkanu and as per the new arrangement co-accused Amritprava was to share room with deceased Zubeen Page No.# 16/36 Garg. He further submitted that inspite of every knowledge about the health condition of the deceased Zubeen Garg, the accused petitioner gave deceased Zubeen Garga bottle of Black and White Whiskey on the day of arrival i.e., on 17.09.2025 and it is the statement of one witness Abhimanyu Talukdar that Shyamkanu had specifically instructed him to purchase a bottle of Black and White Whiskey on his behalf. Shyamkanu took it from Abhimanyu Talukdar and then gave it Zubeen Garg to drink and also made stay arrangement at Hotel Pan Pacific with co-accused Amritprava so that she could continuously feed alcohol to him. He made continuous supply of alcohol to the said room knowing fully well that it may cause bodily harm to deceased Zubeen Garg as he was exclusively restrained from having alcohol due to his seizure and epilepsy as per advice of the Doctor. 35. That though the accused petitioner was not in the Yacht party, but from the testimony of both Tonmay Phukan and Abhimanyu it proves that Shaymkanu was completely aware about the Yacht party and it was thoroughly discussed with Shyamkanu before the trip. But inspite of such knowledge of arrangement of Yacht party, he did not make any arrangement for the medical safety of deceased Zubeen Garg knowing his medical history. 36. That the Function was arranged at about 07:00 p.m. and he asked the Yacht party to bring back deceased Zubeen Garg before time, so that he can attend the function and accordingly he asked the witnesses to arrange the Yacht party and the timing was also preponed as per advice of the present petitioner Shyamkanu Mahanta. Thus he was fully aware about the Yacht party, rather he was the person on whose permission and discussion the Yacht party was arranged, wherein supply of alcohol was also there and it was also within the knowledge of the present petitioner that in a Yacht party there is every risk of Page No.# 17/36 going near to the sea or deep into the sea and only due to permission and acknowledgement given by the present accused petitioner, the Yacht trip involving water sports activities could be arranged. 37. That it was surprised for the team members, namely, Raktim Roy who was handling the NEIF Festival that there was no engagement of any volunteers in the said programme and coming to know about the same, he even gave a Whatsapp message in the group, but even after that there was no arrangement for volunteers. The present petitioner being the organizer was exclusively responsible for all arrangements to be made for safety, security and medical arrangement for the Brand Ambassador, Zubeen Garg. But he deliberately did not make those arrangements and entered into a conspiracy with other co- accused persons and accordingly, even booked a room of stay along with the lady co-accused who was also asked to offer alcohol continuously to deceased Zubeen Garg for the whole night and the Yacht trip party was also organized as per advice and discussions with the present accused petitioner. 38. The submission is that during investigation it was revealed that the present accused petitioner had opportunity at-least three occasions to stop the Yacht trip, if he had an intention to protect Zubeen Garg and not to cause harm. Firstly, he could have refused Abhimanyu by informing him the fact that Zubeen is a patient of seizure and epilepsy and hence, must be kept away from water activities and alcohol, but he deliberately did not do so. Secondly, he had spoken to Tonmoy, who informed the present accused petitioner about the Yacht trip and Zubeen’s participation in it and also asked for permission from the present petitioner, being the event organizer. But at that point of time also he did not refuse Tonmoy in taking Zubeen for water activities in the Yacht trip. Thirdly, on 19.09.2025 morning he met the other team members i.e., Siddharth Page No.# 18/36 Sharma, Sandipon Garg and Shekhar Jyoti and had asked about the Yacht trip and at that point of time also the present accused did not cancel the Yacht trip. Thus, these evidences clearly shows that he had deliberate intention to expose Zubeen Garg to the threat of life and ultimately he was successful in exposing Zubeen Garg to the danger of water, which ultimately become fatal. More so, the incident of drowning had happened in the middle of the sea at about 03:20 p.m. and Zubeen was shifted through an Ambulance only on 04:35 p.m. and Ambulance departed for hospital at 04:43 p.m. and he was declared dead at around 05:13 p.m. Thus, it is seen that his medical assistance or the medical facilities were provided only after 75 minutes of the incident of drowning and it took 113 minutes after the incident of drowning to declare him dead. 39. 39. That in the charge sheet the mens rea of the accused petitioner is also discussed, wherein it is stated that the present petitioner had an odd relationship with Zubeen as Zubeen Garg had repeatedly refused Shyamkanu to do his shows, also rebuked him in public on numerous occasions and expressed displeasure of being exploited by Shyamkanu for his own personal commercial interest. Shyamkanu developed a grudge against Zubeen and out of ill feeling he exposed Zubeen to the dangers of death by restricting all support system such as security, medical assistance while allowing him to go into the deep sea in a yacht trip, keeping himself away from the place of incident in order to curtail any suspicion against him. 40. That during investigation, the statement of his own niece namely, Srijani Mahanta were recorded wherefrom also it is seen that Zubeen Garg was only a commodity for the accused. Mr. Saikia, also submitted that Shyamkanu had created a narrative by calling the Prag News Editor in Chief that Zubeen Garg died because of scuba diving and also released a press statement through PR Page No.# 19/36 Professional Anuj Barua saying that he did not call Zubeen Garg and he came on his own as Zubeen consider himself as a Brand Ambassador of NEIF. But subsequently, he again gave another press note contradicting his own version that after consulting legal team, he was told about the Yacht trip, but he had asked Abhimanyu and Tonmoy not to take Zubeen to the Yacht trip as he is supposed to attend the scheduled function in the evening of 19.09.2025. During investigation, it is also found that he tried to destroy all the evidences of his crime like Whatsapp conversations, chats and data from his mobile phone knowing fully well that he had committed an offence and with an intention to protect himself, he deleted and destructed all the evidences. He also gave two video conversations which also contradict with one another. He even asked co- accused Amritprava to say that he was not aware about the Yacht party, if anyone asked about the incident. 41. That from the statement of witnesses collected so far against the present accused petitioner during investigation or at the time of filing the charge sheet prima facie establishes a case against the present petitioner and there is every probability of conviction of the present accused petitioner. 42. That the petitioner is at flight risk and after the incident, he immediately fled away to Malaysia, for which lookout notice had to be issued in all probable Airports and Interpol was also alerted. That apart one notice was also issued under Section 179 BNSS on 26.09.2025 asking the petitioner to appear on 06.10.2025 before the office of CID and it is also a fact that after receiving the notice, the reply was given by the present petitioner on 28.09.2025 asking the Government to de-freeze the bank account of his daughter, so that necessary arrangements can be made to come to Guwahati and to cooperate in the investigation. But, thereafter, on 28.09.2025 Section 103(1) BNS was added and Page No.# 20/36 hence, there was no such necessity of issuing notice and the State Government/the police investigation team had made all necessary arrangements for tickets and accordingly, he was apprehended at Delhi Airport and brought before the office of the CID. Thus, it is submitted by Saikia, learned AG that his conduct of fleeing away to Malaysia immediately after the incident reveals that the probability of absconding of the present petitioner cannot be denied and he is still under flight risk, though subsequently, finding no other alternative he communicated the reply stating for cooperation with the office of the CID. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge rightly observed that the accused petitioner is still under flight risk which was one of the ground for rejection of his bail prayer. 43. Coming to the reply to submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the Event was not illegal and it was organized in collaboration with the High Commission of India at Singapore wherein State Governments of the North Eastern States were also invited and the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Meghalaya has also made response to the said invitation and it is also an admitted fact that the invitation were also send by High Commission of India at Singapore. But merely because of invitation was sent from High Commission of India at Singapore, the accused petitioner cannot absolve himself from the offences as alleged against him. Rather, he himself stated that he is the co-organizer of that Cultural Event, wherein he himself wrote a letter to the Manager of Pan Pacific Hotel for arrangement of the stay. It is also seen from the documents annexed by the petitioner that he wrote to the Manager of Hotel not for supply of any liquor during stay of Zubeen Garg in the said Hotel. But on the other hand, he himself purchased the liquor bottle for the deceased which was offered to him even in the Bar on the day when Zubeen Garg and his Page No.# 21/36 team arrived at the Hotel. 44. That one hotel room chart is also annexed along with the additional affidavit by the petitioner to show that all room arrangement was made by the hotel authority wherein Zubeen Garg and his team was given four room in the Hotel Pan Pacific and one more was booked in another hotel. But during investigation and from the seizure documents it reveals that the present petitioner is the person, who made all arrangement of stay in the hotel room and as per his instruction only co-accused Amritprava was given room to be shared with deceased Zubeen Garg, so that she can offer alcohol to Zubeen Garg whole night. 45. That it is a fact that in the Yacht trip, the petitioner was not present, but his presence in the Yacht party is not necessary when he planned and conspired everything to bring Zubeen Garg near to sea water and the Yacht party was seems to be organized with his consultation when it was well known to the accused Shyamkanu regarding the health condition of Zubeen Garg. He was one of the conspirators who entered into a conspiracy with other co-accused person to eliminate the asset of the State of Assam. For constant supply of alcohol he made a conspiracy and changed the room arrangement wherein co-accused Amritprava was planned only with a view to serve alcohol to Zubeen Garg constantly. 46. That from the documents 61 and 62 that the post mortem report of the Doctors team conducted in Singapore and the post mortem conducted by the Doctors of Assam is similar wherein 333 mg of alcohol was found in the body of the deceased and as per medical term, more than 300 mg ethanol can make coma, respiratory and cardiovascular depression. Page No.# 22/36 47. Accordingly, Mr. Saikia, learned AG vehemently raised objection and prayed for rejection of the bail prayer of the petitioner. 48. Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned counsel assisting Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Senior Counsel-cum- Special Public Prosecutor relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following cases: (i) Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528; (ii) Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee and another reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496; (iii) State of U. P. through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 and (iv) Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and others reported in (2002) 3 SCC 598 49. In para 11 of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that law in regards to grant of bail or refusal of bail is well settled. Para 11 of the said judgment read as under: “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are, (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge;” Page No.# 23/36 50. In case of Prasanta Kr. Sarkar(supra) as stated above also held that while dealing with the case of bail the nature and gravity of the case is to be considered. 51. In case of Amarmani Tripathi(supra) as referred above, have given some guidelines at the time of consideration of bail in para 18 of the said judgment, which read as under: “18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge;(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi 2001 (4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004 (7) SCC 528: "The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non- application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.” 52. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel by referring the above noted judgments submitted that at the time of consideration of bail, the Court is to see the nature and gravity of the offence prima facie materials is to be considered before Page No.# 24/36 passing any order on bail and also to consider the fact as to whether there is any chances of hampering or tampering with the evidence and whether, the accused is at flight risk and accordingly prayed for rejection of the bail prayer of the petitioner. PETITIONER’S REPLY 53. In reply to the arguments made by the State respondents, it is submitted by Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel that from the statement made by the witness Tonmoy Phukan and Abhimanyu Talukdar it is seen that they had organized the Yacht party and thus, they could have cited as accused as they also took part in the said conspiracy. He further submitted that the accused petitioner cannot force anyone to share room as per his choice and it is as per choice of the person who share room between them as per their choice. After the incident, immediately the police and medical help was sought for and CPR was also given to the deceased Zubeen Garg instantly when he was brought to the Yacht and thus, there was no negligence in providing the medical treatment or police help immediately after the incident. 54. In regards to payment also it is submitted that the deceased Zubeen Garg never used to take any payments by entering into an agreement which was informed by his earlier manager Tarsan Mittal, whose statement is also recorded as L-26 by the investigating team. 55. He further submitted that he along with family members visited Malaysia from Singapore which is very near to Singapore and for visiting to Malaysia it cannot be said that the accused petitioner fled away from the place of incident or he was at flight risk. In regards to statement made by the niece of Shyamkanu Mahanta, he submitted that only one video post was made by the Page No.# 25/36 niece of Shymakanu Mahanta on the basis of which the investigating officer had made such statement. In this context, Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that it is not a case that only video post of the niece of the present accused petitioner was taken into consideration but her oral statement was also recorded during investigation. 56. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel accordingly replying to the arguments made by the State respondents submitted that without any fault of the accused petitioner, he has been languishing in jail hazot since last 8 (eight) months and considering all these aspects of the case, he may be released on bail. DISCUSSION 57. It is the case of the State respondents that the present petitioner is very much involved in the alleged offence. He played an active part in the said conspiracy wherein they made a conspiracy to eliminate the legend of Assam Zubeen Garg as there was no cordial relationship between the deceased Zubeen Garg and the accused Shyamkanu Mahanta and in numerous occasions the deceased Zubeen Garg had expressed his displeasure of being exploited by the accused petitioner for his own commercial interest and for which also the present petitioner had grudge against Zubeen Garg and out of ill feeling he exposed Zubeen to the dangers of death by restricting all support system such as security, medical assistance while allowing him to go into the deep sea in a Yacht trip keeping himself away from the place of incident in order to curtail any suspicion against him. More so, it is the case of the prosecution that he induced Zubeen Garg to attend the NEIF function at Singapore threatening that he would commit suicide, if he does not attend the said function. Thus, he was a person who insisted or forced Zubeen Garg to attend the function at Singapore Page No.# 26/36 and even after the room arrangement which was made for stay had been changed by the present petitioner and in that context he made arrangement for stay of Zubeen Garg with co-accused Amritprava in the same room only with an intention to provide continuous supply of alcohol inspite of knowledge about the health condition of the deceased Zubeen Garg, who was strictly restricted from going near to the water and fire and also his alcohol consumption was restricted. By discussing the various points in the charge sheet as well as the statements made by the witnesses it is stated by the State respondents that accused petitioner is the person who offered liquor to the deceased Zubeen Garg even on the date of arrival at Hotel Pan Pacific and he is the person who asked one of the witness Tonmoy Phukan to purchase a bottle of Whiskey only for deceased Zubeen Garg and he was continuously feed with the alcohol the whole night with the help of co-accused Amritprava who was sharing the room in the Pan Pacific. 58. 58. Further, it is the case of the State respondents that the Yacht party was also organized in consultation with the present accused petitioner who did not inform the organizer of the Yacht party that some of the NRI/witnesses regarding the health condition of the deceased Zubeen Garg though it is well within his knowledge that he is strictly prohibited not to go near water and fire with every knowledge that the Yacht party trip will have some water activities deep into the sea, he never prevented the organizer of the Yacht party, rather, he is the person under whose guidance or and with his permission the yacht trip was organized by the other witnesses. 59. As per the prosecution that for the accused petitioner Zubeen Garg was a commodity and he was used as commodity for earning money. It is an admitted fact that the present accused petitioner was not present in the Yacht party but it Page No.# 27/36 is the case of the respondents that his presence in the Yacht party is not necessary, when he planned and conspired everything to bring Zubeen Garg near the sea water and the Yacht party seems to be organized with his consultation inspite of the fact that it was well within the knowledge of accused Shyamkanu regarding the health condition of Zubeen Garg. Thus, he was one of the conspirators who entered into a conspiracy with other co-accused person to eliminate the asset of the State of Assam. 60. The arguments was also made by producing the statements made by the witnesses or the documents which were seized during the investigation and the materials which were collected during the investigation against the present accused Shyamkanu. More so, the State also emphasized on the post mortem report wherein 333 ml ethanol was found in the blood of the deceased Zubeen Garg which is one of the cause of death of the deceased and such quantity/amount of ethanol was present in the body of the deceased only due to conspiracy made by the present accused along with other co-accused persons to give constant supply of alcohol to deceased Zubeen Garg for the whole night through co-accused Amritprava who shared the room with deceased Zubeen Garg. 61. 61. The State respondents also relied on the above referred judgment wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had expressed the view that under what condition the bail can be granted or rejected to a person and what are the factors to be considered at the time of granting bail. 62. It is also the case of the State respondents that the room chart was accordingly prepared and Zubeen Garg was to share his room with one Anuj Baruah, but that has been changed after their arrival at Hotel Pan Pacific only as per instructions of the present petitioner and those were also recovered from his Page No.# 28/36 house during the investigation. That apart there was no safety /medical arrangement for the legend Zubeen Garg during his stay and there was no arrangement of volunteers also at the hotel, which was to be specifically arranged by the present petitioner. 63. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner/accused is that he is innocent and he was not at all a part of the conspiracy as alleged against him. It is their case that he as a co-organizer had invited deceased Zubeen Garg who was declared as a Brand Ambassador of the Function. However, the invitations were sent from the High Commission of India at Singapore not only to the State of Assam but to other North Eastern States and some of the States have also gave their response to be present in the said function. He was merely a co- organizer, however, he took all initiative for proper arrangement of the stay of deceased Zubeen Garg and his team and the hotel rooms were also provided at Hotel Pan Pacific. It is also stated by the accused petitioner that the room chart/arrangement was made by the hotel authority wherein four rooms were provided in Hotel Pan Pacific and one room was provided in another hotel. Thus, he is not involved or the room was not shared by the deceased Zubeeng Garg along with co-accused Amritprava as per his choice or instructions. It is completely as per choice of deceased Zubeen Garg and his team to share the room accordingly. 64. Further, as discussed above, it is also the case of the petitioner that the deceased Zubeen Garg started drinking alcohol while boarding the flight and even after reaching at Hotel, he took alcohol which was brought by the witness Tonmoy which reveals from the statement made by Tonmoy Phukan. Apart from that the yacht party was not at all organized by the accused petitioner Shyamkanu, rather, he instructed the organizer to bring back Zubeen Garg Page No.# 29/36 before the function and being the Brand Ambassador, Zubeen has to remain present in the function. More so, while issuing letter to the hotel authority, he strictly mentioned that no liquor will be provided in the room of Zubeen Garg and apart from that it is the case of the accused petitioner that he was never at flight risk but he could not come immediately from Malaysia as he could not arrange for tickets and during investigation his bank accounts along with the bank account of his wife and daughter were freezed. However, he made communication and reply to the notice which he received from the CID investigating team. Thus, it is the case of the accused petitioner that was never made any conspiracy and it is completely a case of a accidental drowning wherein Zubeen Garg died due to drowning which also reveals as per medical report. It cannot be a case of homicidal death and there is no ingredients to book the present petitioner under the said Sections of law as referred above. 65. After analyzing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, and going through the materials so far collected by the I.O., prima facie it is seen that inspite 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 Zubeen Garg insipte of the fact that he was a patient of epilepsy. More so, from the materials collected by the I.O. it also prima facie reveals that accused petitioner was the person under whose consultation and advice the Yacht party was organized and it is not the case that he was not aware about the organization of the Yacht party, rather, the Yacht party was organized by the team only with the consultation of Shyamkanu Mahanta. It is a fact that the Zubeen Garg died as a result of drowning but as per prosecution it is not a simple case of drowning as the deceased was fed with alcohol for the whole night and without even providing him breakfast, he was taken to the Page No.# 30/36 Yacht party without any medical assistance, insipte of the knowledge that as per the medical advice he is not allowed to go near to the water or fire and also restricted for consuming alcohol. Without going into the other detail merit of the case, prima facie it is seen that there was a conspiracy of the petitioner along with other co-accused persons as because inspite of having knowledge about the health condition of the deceased Zubeen Garg, he never prohibited or restrained by the organizer of the Yacht trip to not to take Zubeen Garg in the trip wherein water activities was organized in the deep sea water, rather, with the consultation of the present accused petitioner the entire trip was organized which prima facie reveals that he played an active part in the said conspiracy. 66. 66. In the backdrop of the above discussion and the materials on record, it is seen that though it is denied by the petitioner that he was not aware about any room arrangement in the Hotel Pan Pacific, nor he ever supplied any bottle of liquor to the deceased, only nor he planted said co-accused Amritprava in the same room to share with deceased Zubeen Garg, but from the materials so far collected by the Investigating team at the time of filing charge sheet or as discussed above, it is seen that the accused petitioner was the person, under whose instruction the room chart was changed and after arrival of Zubeen Garg and his team and as per his instructions only, the co-accused Amritprava was allowed to stay in the same room sharing with deceased Zubeen Garg. 67. Further it cannot be out-rightly rejected that there is a flight risk of the petitioner, if he is released on bail. 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 is a fact that his Aadhar Card, Pan Card and some bank documents were seized during the investigation, but inspite of those seizure, the probability of absconding of the Page No.# 31/36 accused cannot be ruled out at this stage. The deceased being one of his good friend, he could have arrived immediately before the Investigating team at Guwahati after the said unfortunate incident. But instead of returning back to Guwahati, he immediately fled away to Malaysia with his family members and subsequently he got arrested in Delhi Airport as Interpole was alerted. The lookout notice was also issued to every probable Airport. It is seen that he subsequently made communication with the I.O. after freezing of his bank account including his family members and in that case, the State Government has arranged the tickets for the accused petitioner. 68. That apart, he being an influential person, the probability of hampering or tampering with the witnesses also cannot be denied at this stage. Admittedly, there is a large number of witnesses listed by the prosecution which is stated to be 394 in numbers, but all the witnesses may not be relevant for the prosecution which the Trial Court may consider during the trial. The case is at the stage of consideration of charge. The picture will be some-what clear only after recording the evidence of vital material witnesses are recorded by the prosecution. 69. Before proceeding further, the facts and the decision arrived in the cases referred by both the parties are to be discussed. 70. In Najeeb’s case bail was granted by the High Court of Kerala and NIA moved Supreme Court for cancellation of bail. While dismissing the NIAs appeal, the Supreme Court delved upon the constitutional rights under Article 21 over statutory bars under Section 43D(5) of UAP 17 and held that the Section 43D(5) of UAPA do not freeze or restrict the powers of Constitutional Court to uphold the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution due to gross judicial delays. The other observation was that executing trials at snail’s pace while Page No.# 32/36 keeping the accused incarcerated indefinitely violates constitutional standards. In this case, the accused was in detention for five and half years. 71. The Supreme Court in the case of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi (supra) in Criminal Appeal of 2026 arising out of SLP No. 1090/2026 has given due importance to Article 21 of the Constitution on personal liberty thereby opined that the Court in case of Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2024) 5 SCC 403 and Gulfisha Fatima Vs. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi reported in 2026 SCC OnLine has taken some more divergent view from clear distinctive trajectory taken by the Supreme Court qua grant of bail given under special enactments like TADA, UAPA and NDPS Act. 72. In case of Sheikh Javeed Iqbal @ Ahfaq Ansari @ Javed Ali (supra) as relied by the petitioners’ side has also emphasized on the life and personal liberty of the accused and took the view of the judgment passed in the three Judges Bench in the case of Najeeb (supra). 73. All these cases relates to UAPA amongst other and Court in the case of Gurwinder Singh (supra) and Gulfisha Fatima (supra) rejected the bail prayer inspite of detention of five years and above, differentiating the case of Najeeb (supra) by a larger Bench of three Judges Bench. 74. The Supreme Court in Najeeb’s case held that continued incarceration cannot go unabated by a mere discharge by the State of the prima facie standard under Section 43D(5) of UAPA. The Supreme Court in para 27.9 in Andrabi (supra) case held that judgment in Najeeb’s case exclusively held that Section 43D(5) of UAPA will melt down where prolonged incarceration and delayed trial cause of violation of Article 21. 75. All the cases as discussed above, relates to prolonged detention of five Page No.# 33/36 years and above under UAPA and other provisions of law. The Special Act UAPA provides a statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) disallowing bail as interpreted by the Supreme Court in these cases vis-à-vis Article 21 of the Constitution and following Najeeb’s decision the Supreme Court allowed bail in Andrabi’s case whereas in Gurwinder and Gulfisha’s case disallowed the bail distinguishing Najeeb’s case. The offence of Najeeb’s case pertains to a person (a Professor) whose right palm was chopped off by choppers, knifes and small axe for including a question in the examination, which according to the accused and his organization PFI was blasphemy. But so far in other three cases are concerned, the offence relates to society at large. That apart the Supreme Court in Najeeb’s case was concerned with the manner in which Section 43D(5) of UAPA was in practice being deployed as in almost conclusive basis for denial of bail notwithstanding extraordinary delay in trial and prolonged incarceration. It did not suggest that mere passage of time, diverse from all surrounding, circumstances mechanically entitles the accused to release. This aspect has been mentioned by the Supreme Court in para 30 and reiterated in para 32 of Andrabi’s judgment. 76. In the case in hand, the alleged offence of murder etc., relates to death of Iconic Singer Zubeen Garg leading to sea of mourners. What initially began as immense sorrow quickly transformed into widespread public outcry. Numbers of FIR were lodged and there were media reports of mob attack in the house of the present accused and another. There was mob attack on the police party when this accused along with others were transported to the jail at Mushalpur, Baksa Distract. 77. So in a given situation, the question arises as to whether, the public sentiments or outcry, the personal liberty of the accused, deserves curtailment. Page No.# 34/36 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. But there must exist the triple test as mentioned in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. CBI decided by three Judges Bench in Crl. A. No. 1603/2019 like flight risk, tampering of evidences 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, as discussed above in para 49 to 51 and these grounds are prima facie present in the present case as discussed above, which is revealed from the case diary and the charge sheet. More so, in the given situation the collective consciences and public order becomes paramount and at the same time, the safety of the accused is also to be taken into consideration. 78. The Supreme Court in the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan Vs. Ishtiaw Hasan Khan and another reported in AIR 1987 SC 1613, (1987) 2 SCC 684 observed that that liberty is to be secured through process of law, which is administered keeping the interest of the accused, the near and dear of the victims, who lost his life and who feel helpless and believe that there is no justice in the world as also the collective interest of the community so that parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution. The Supreme Court considering this aspect along with others, set aside the order of the High Court allowing bail. 79. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Shahzad Hasan Khan’s case was referred by the Supreme Court in the case of Masroor Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 266 and held that there is no denying of the fact that liberty of an individual is precious and it is to be zealously protected by the Courts. Page No.# 35/36 Nonetheless such protection cannot be absolute in every situation. The valuable right of liberty of an individual and interest of society in general has to be balanced. Liberty of a person depends upon the exigencies of the case. It is possible that in a given situation, the collective interest of the society may outweigh the right personal liberty of an individual concerned. 80. The Special Court has already been constituted for dealing with the present case and hence, it can be expected that within a reasonable period of time, the trial may be completed and even if all witnesses not able to be recorded, at least major number of witness including material witness are recorded within a reasonable period of time. So merely, considering the number of witnesses the bail prayer for the present accused petitioner cannot be considered at this stage, considering alleged offence and materials against him at this stage and magnitude of the consequences of the alleged conspiracy in the murder of a legend, which had a devastating effect on the society at large. Furthermore, unlike in the cases of Najeeb or Andrabi, where they were in custody for five years and above, but trial not proceeding further with no special designated Court for day to day trial, whereas in this instant case, a special designated Court has been constituted only for day to day trial of this sole case. 81. So considering the long list of prosecution witnesses and the period of detention of 8 (eight) months cannot be considered as long period of incarceration or that there is undue delay in the process of trial to constitute the violation of the Constitutional right of the accused petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 82. In view of the entire discussion made herein above, this Court is of the opinion that it is not at all a fit case to enlarge the present petitioner on bail. Page No.# 36/36 83. Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioner, Shyamkanu Mahanta in connection with Sessions Case No. 256/2025 arising out of CID Police Station FIR No. 18/2025 dated 20.09.2025 registered under Sections 61(2)/105/106(1) of BNS, 2023 with added Section 103 of BNS, 2023 corresponding to Charge Sheet No. 14/2025 dated 12.12.2025 submitted against the present petitioner under Sections 3(6)/3(7)/3(8)/61(2)/103(1)/105/238/308(2)/318(4)/ 316(5) of BNS, 2023 stands rejected. 84. This bail application accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant