Page No.# 1/33 GAHC010106042026 2026:GAU-AS:9372 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1453/2026 SIDDHARTH SHARMA, S/O LATE SH. OM PRAKASH SHARMA R/O H. NO. 6 PNGB ROAD HILL SIDE, SHANTIPUR, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM- 781009 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM (THROUGH CID, ASSAM) GOVT .OF ASSAM CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, ASSAM GUWAHATI, 65, BARTHAKUR MILL ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM- 781007 Advocate for the Petitioner : A R PAL, Advocate for the Respondent : SPECIAL PP ASSAM, MR P TALUKDAR,MR W R MEDHI BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 26-06-2026 Heard Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Senior Counsel-cum-Special PP, Assam assisted by Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned Page No.# 2/33 Addl. Special P.P; Mr. P. Dutta, learned Asstt. Special P.P. and Mr. W. R. Medhi, learned counsel 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, Siddharth Sharma who was arrested on 01.10.2025 in connection with Sessions Case No. 256/2025 arising out of FIR No. 18/2025 registered at CID under Sections 3(6)/3(7)/3(8)/61(2) read with Section 103(1) and substantive offences thereof under Sections 61(2), read with Section 316(5) and substantive offence thereof of the BNS, 2023, Police Station, Ulubari, Assam pending before the Exclusive Fast Track Sessions Judge, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati. 3. Case diary received. Perused the same. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSION 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel submitted that for considering a bail application, the Court is to consider the following: (i) Whether there is any prima facie case; (ii) Whether there is any chance of misuse of liberty; (iii) Whether there is a probability of tempering or hampering with the evidences/witnesses; and (iv) Whether the community sentiments or the public outcry can be the grounds for rejection of bail. 5. He basically emphasized on the rejection order passed by the learned Special Judge vide its order dated 04.05.2026 and specially the reasoning part on the basis of which, the bail petition was rejected. 6. He submitted that the Court had discussed in the order regarding the Page No.# 3/33 health condition of the deceased Singer Zubeen Garg and it is also discussed that the programme was organized without medical and security arrangements and he was also allowed to go into the Yacht party and to enter into the water and the deceased was also given high dose of alcohol on the date of the incident as well as on the previous night, i.e., on 18.09.2025. It is also discussed by the learned Special Judge that in the year 2025, the deceased had suffered from seizure on four times and on every occasion, he was hospitalized wherein the Doctors gave a direction to the family members of the deceased, his wife as well as the manager, i.e., the present petitioner, to not to give the deceased any alcohol and also asked not to allow him to go into the sea or swim and the present petitioner also signed in a consent form of the deceased during his treatment. 7. 7. He was also advised to take care of him and inspite of having every knowledge about his health condition, the petitioner had allowed him to have alcohol and the present petitioner also allowed the deceased to go into the deep sea and to enjoy the Yacht party which was strictly prohibited for the deceased. 8. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel accordingly submitted that being the Manager, his duty was to organize the tour programme, programme to be attended by the deceased Zubeen Garg and other activities like fixation of the money etc., was to be looked into by the present petitioner being the Manager of the deceases Singer Zubeen Garg. But as a manager, he was not supposed to take personal care of deceased Zubeen Garg. It is not under his duty to provide medicine or to take all personal care of the deceased Zubeen Garg and he being the manager, he was assigned with the other duties as referred above. Thus, in the reasoning brought by the learned Special Judge, there is no ingredient or material to establish a prima facie case against the present petitioner, showing his Page No.# 4/33 involvement in the alleged offence. 9. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel submitted that the learned Special Judge had made the discussion in regards to financial transactions in para 22, 23, and 24 in its order, which is no way related with the alleged offence, nor the petitioner can be made liable for the offence due to this kind of financial mis-transactions which has been alleged against the present petitioner. 10. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel submitted that in para 25 of the said order, it has been discussed by the learned Special Judge that the petitioner was in possession of all valuable documents and other valuable things of the deceased, but he kept all those documents till the police seized the same from him. Thereafter, police also could not make any contact and thereafter, the FIR was lodged against him and the petitioner was hiding in various places of India like Delhi, Rajasthan even after coming to India from Singapore. In that context, it is submitted by Mr. Mishra that the incident had happened on 19.09.2025 and on 20.09.2025 different FIRs were being registered and during the period from 20.09.2025 to 22.09.2025, the deceased was brought from Singapore to Guwahati, Assam. On 26.09.2025 only the petitioner received a Notice under Section 179 BNSS to appear before the Investigating Team on 06.10.2025. 11. After receiving the Notice on 26.09.2025, the petitioner gave his reply on 29.09.2025 to the office of the CID and vide that reply, he stated that he is fully ready to cooperate with the investigation and willing to submit all the documents and evidences which are in his possession, if those are necessary for the investigation, but he prayed to make necessary arrangements for his safety as well as safety of his family, as he received serious life threat from different corner. Thus, it is not the case that the petitioner was hiding himself or avoiding from appearing before the CID Police Station, but, he only prayed for to make Page No.# 5/33 some arrangement for his safety and safety of his family members as there was a life threat and his entire family was also under the risk and he intimated all these things to the Investigating Agency of CID Police Station vide his reply dated 29.09.2025. 12. Further, it is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel that the present petitioner is the person who made all necessary arrangement to bring the deceased from Singapore to Guwahati, Assam and in that view, he was also all along with the deceased since the day of the incident. He also obtained all the necessary documents and booked the flight tickets for the deceased and thus, he took all initiative to bring the deceased from Singapore to Guwahati, Assam. He did not ran away to any other country from Singapore and he was always ready to extend his cooperation with the CID team and hence, on receipt of the Notice under Section 179 BNSS on 26.09.20258, he immediately responded to the letter and only prayed for his safety arrangement for him as well as for his family members. But before the date fixed on 06.10.2025, he was arrested on 01.10.2025 prior to his appearance before the Investigating Team of CID Police Station. Thus, there was never any flight risk of the petitioner, nor he avoided himself to appear before the Police Station to cooperate in the investigation of this case, but in between he got arrested in connection with this case on 01.10.2025. 13. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel further submitted that charge of murder was subsequently brought against the present petitioner, only on the basis of statement of some of the co-accused, which is not legally tenable. From the records it is seen that the I.O. made a prayer before the learned JMFC, Kamrup, Guwahati for addition of Section 103(1) BNS, 2023 only considering the statements made by the co-accused persons and on the basis of the prayer Page No.# 6/33 made by the I.O., the learned JMFC, Kamrup, Guwahati had allowed the prayer of the I.O. for addition of Section 103(1) of BNS. 14. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel submitted that while adding Section 103(1) of BNS, it is seen that the co-accused persons, who made those statements/confessions had implicated the present petitioner, without implicating them in the alleged offence. He further submitted that as per Section 30 of the Evidence Act “when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and the confession made by one of such person affecting himself and some other of such person is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession”. But as stated above, the co-accused persons had implicated the involvement of the present petitioner without saying anything against them while making their statement/confession before the police officer during investigation. More so, it is a well settled law that as per Section 26, the confession made by an accused to persons other than police officer would be inadmissible, if it was made while he was in police custody, unless such confession was made in presence of a Magistrate. To substantiate the plea, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sri Krishna Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 1157 and basically emphasized on para 30, 33, 36, which read as under: “30.Since the High Court has touched Section 30 of the Evidence Act, we would like to say something in this regard. The said provision reads thus: - “When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.” 33.Section 25 of the Evidence Act, goes one step further, by providing that even if Page No.# 7/33 such confession is not hit by Section 24 i.e., it is not the result of any threat, inducement or promise and thus, considered relevant, still such confession would be inadmissible if it was made to a police officer. Section 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act, however, carves out an exception to this. Section 26 provides that, a confession made by the accused to persons other than police officers would be inadmissible, if it was made whilst he was in police custody, unless such confession was made in the presence of a magistrate. Whereas, Section 27 only permits limited use of such statement only to the extent that a fact is discovered pursuant to disclosure statement which would connect the accused with the crime with authorship of concealment. 36.This Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P reported in (1952) 1 SCC 275 further explained as to when such confession may be taken into consideration against another co-accused. Placing reliance on the decision of Periyaswami Moopan, In re. reported in 1930 SCC OnLine Mad 86 it was held that, “where there is evidence against the co- accused sufficient, if believed, to support his conviction, then the kind of confession described in Section 30 may be thrown into the scale as an additional reason for believing that evidence” and “the proper way is, first, to marshal the evidence against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and see whether, if it is believed a conviction could safely be based on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the confession, then of course it is not necessary to call the confession in aid. But cases may arise where the Judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it stands even though, if believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an event the Judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other evidence and thus fortify himself in believing what without the aid of the confession he would not be prepared to accept”. Thus, such a confession can only be pressed into consideration by the court as a rule of prudence, to lend assurance to the other evidence against such co-accused.” 15. In that context, he also relied another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1952) 1 SCC 275, which is also relied by the Apex Court in the above referred case of Sri Krishna Mohan Reddy (supra). 16. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel submitted that the case was initially registered under Sections 61(2)/105/106(1) of BNS, and subsequently, the other Sections of law, like Sections 3(6)/3(7)/3(8)/61(2)/103(1)/238/308(2)/318(4)/316(5) of BNS was added. 17. It is further submitted that from the materials on record also, it is seen that there cannot be any case against the present petitioner under Sections Page No.# 8/33 3(6)/3(7)/3(8) as alleged. There was prima facie no materials that he had any knowledge or intention or there was any mitigation of mind for the offence which has alleged to have been committed by the present petitioner. 18. He further submitted that being the Manager of the deceased Zubeen Garg, he has no legal obligations to take all the personal care of the deceased and there may be some moral application, but the same cannot be termed as negligence or illegal act and may be only omission and it may be considered as only omission and cannot be termed as negligence. There were no materials to show that he fed alcohol to the deceased or pushed the deceased into the sea by saying the word ‘jabo de’ ‘jabo de’. 19. He never served any drinks to the deceased, nor, he was the person who made any room arrangement for the deceased on the night of 17.09.2025 when they reached the hotel. More so, deceased was never under his control and he was not supposed to control the deceased and being the Manager, he did his duty with utmost sincerity. The petitioner was never at flight risk, nor, there is any chance of hampering or tempering with the evidences, if the petitioner is released on bail. He is in custody since last more than 8 (eight) months and the listed witnesses of the prosecution is 394 in numbers. Thus, even if, the case is taken on day-to-day basis in that event also, there is no possibility of completion of trial within 2 (two) years. Thus, considering his period of long incarceration also, the petitioner is entitled to go on bail. 20. Relying on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel submitted that the Apex Court had given some guidelines and in that condition only, the bail can be rejected for an accused. He basically emphasized on para 18 of the said judgment, which read as under: Page No.# 9/33 “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.” 21. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel further submitted that only considering the public outcry or community sentiments, the bail petition for the accused cannot be rejected by the Court. He further submitted that at the time of granting the bail, the detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation on the merit is not required and bail also cannot be denied merely because of sentiments of the community against an accused. In that context also, Mr. Mishra had relied on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 11 SCC 458 wherein in para 29, 30 and 31, it has been held as under: Page No.# 10/33 “29) 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. 30) Before concluding, we must note that though an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications. 31) At the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused.” 22. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel further submitted that considering the incarceration of the accused petitioner and also considering the fact that the probability of completion of the trial within a reasonable period cannot be expected, the prayer for bail of the petitioner may be considered at this stage, and he being the permanent resident of the addressed locality, there is no chance of absconding or hampering or tempering with the evidence of the prosecution, rather, he will regularly appear before the Court on each and every date, to be fixed by the Court. 23. In that context also Mr. Mishra, learned counsel relied on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi Vs. National Page No.# 11/33 Investigating Agency reported in 2026 SCC OnLine 881, wherein also it has been observed by the Apex Court 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 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. 24. In the said judgment it has also been observed by the Apex Court that bail should not be denied merely because of sentiments of community against the accused. 25. Citing the above referred judgment it is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel that it is a fit case, wherein the accused can be granted with the privilege of bail and the accused will appear regularly and contest the case, as and when the case is fixed by the Court. RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS 26. Mr. D. Saikia, learned AG, Assam appearing on behalf of the State respondents submitted that there are sufficient materials against the present petitioner to establish a case under Sections 3(6)/3(7)/3(8)/61(2) read with Section 103(1) BNS and read with Section 316(5) of BNS. 27. Mr. Saikia, learned AG, Assam basically stressed on the charge sheet which is filed against the present petitioner and emphasized on the evidences which establishes a case against the present petitioner, namely Siddharth Sharma at Page No.# 12/33 the time of filing the charge sheet and also the statements of the witnesses as well as relevant documents seized during the time of investigation. 28. It is submitted that during the investigation, it has come out that the present petitioner was very much present in the Yacht party and at the relevant time of incident, he asked/encouraged the deceased Zubeen Garg to go to the water and also asked the other members not to follow Zubeen Garg, which reveals his intention to kill the deceased. That apart, it also reveals that when the deceased Zubeen Garg was drowning at that time also inspite of hearing hue and cry, he just ignored the hue and cry and did not take any step to save and to provide immediate treatment to the deceased. 29. Further, from the statement of the witnesses and the charge sheet itself, it is seen that he did not restrain the other members of the Yacht party to allow the deceased to go into the water, rather, he was encouraging by saying ‘let him go’, ‘let him go’ (Jabo de, Jabo de) when the deceased was in an alcoholic state and he was highly intoxicated. He being the manager of deceased Zubeen Garg, his health condition was well known to the present petitioner and rather, he put his signature in the consent form and other medical documents as a guardian of the deceased Zubeen Garg, when he was admitted in the hospital due to the attack of epilepsy and other diseases. 30. He further submitted that from the statements made by the witnesses also, it is seen that he offered a bottle of alcohol to the deceased in the Yacht party itself and then in such an intoxicated state he was allowed to swim into the deep sea water, even without a life jacket. 31. Mr. Saikia, learned AG further submitted that in conspiracy with the co- accused Shyamkanu Mahanta, the present petitioner made the hotel room Page No.# 13/33 arrangement and allowed the co-accused Amritprava Mahanta to share the same room only with a view to offer alcohol to deceased Zubeen Garg for the whole night inspite of knowledge that he was totally restricted from having alcohol and also restricted from going into the water or near to the sea. From the statement of PW-113, Raktim Roy it also reveals that as to how he made the room arrangement in connivance with the co-accused Shyamkanu Mahanta in the hotel Panpacific and inspite of every knowledge that the health condition of the deceased Zubeen Garg he was given alcohol for the whole night and on the next day also in the Yacht party he was offered with a bottle of alcohol and in such a intoxicated state, he was allowed to swim in the water and on second time, without even using a life jacket. He further submitted that being the manager of the deceased Zubeen Garg, he did not even try to restrain him from going into the water or prevent him from taking alcohol, rather, he encouraged other persons by saying ‘Jabo de’, ‘Jabo de’. 32. Mr. Saikia, learned AG also raised the issue that the present petitioner along with the co-accused persons hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the legend Zubeen Garg at Guwahati. From the statement of one witness, it is seen that there was a plan in the year 2024 itself by Siddharth Sharma to make deceased Zubeen Garg exit from the stage, and with this plan in mind, he asked Raktim Roy, one of the employee under the co-accused Shayamkanu Mahanta to work out a plan by naming ‘One Last Tour’. Said plan was discovered in the whatsapp messages exchanged between the present petitioner with one Raktim Roy and the mobile handset has already been seized during investigation and the data were subsequently retrieved through FSL. The profit amount by organizing the said programme was also calculated in advance and the programme was named as ‘Last Tour Programme’ without even any knowledge of the deceased Zubeen Page No.# 14/33 Garg and from the statement of the witness, LW-157, it also reveals that deceased Zubeen Garg showed his displeasure with the act of the present petitioner and he never gave any account to him and hence, he stated that after coming from Singapore on 02.10.2025, he would take all the account audit from the manager Siddharth Sharma. The deceased Zubeen Garg also stated before the said witness that the accused Shyamkanu Mahanta and Siddharth Sharma had made his life hell and hence, he decided to drive those two accused persons from his life. Thus, coming to know about all these things, the present petitioner along with the other co-accused persons had made a conspiracy to eliminate deceased Zubeen Garg and that conspiracy was hatched in Guwahati and executed at Singapore by making all arrangement to eliminate him. Thus, it is submitted by Mr. Saikia, learned AG that the present petitioner was very much involved in hatching the criminal conspiracy to kill Zubeen Garg and thus, Section 103(1) of BNS is applicable against the present petitioner. 33. In that context, Mr. Saikia, learned AG also submitted that from the statement of witnesses of different Bihu organizing committee etc., it is seen that during investigation, the I.O. had collected sufficient evidence as to how, the present petitioner had misappropriated the money and cheated the legend Singer Zubeen Garg and one chart is also annexed along with the charge-sheet wherein it is clearly stated as to what amount of money has been misappropriated by the present petitioner in the name of collection of money for each and every programme which was organized by the Committee for the deceased Singer Zubeen Garg. A detail chart has been annexed along with the charge sheet by the I.O. during the investigation. Thus, he misappropriated huge amount of money by cheating the deceased Zubeen Garg, when the deceased showed his displeasure with the present petitioner Siddharth Sharma Page No.# 15/33 and was supposed to take all the audit account from him after his return from Singapore, a criminal conspiracy was hatched and he was eliminated from world. He further submitted that with that conspiracy the ‘Last Tour Programme’ was organized by the present petitioner along with the other co-accused persons and the profit amount to be collected from the said ‘Last Tour Programme’ was also calculated by the present petitioner in the month June, 2024. 34. Mr. Saikia, learned AG further submitted that the present accused petitioner had developed a clear profitable state in the death of Zubeen Garg and his interest got linked in ensuring that Zubeen is dead as soon as possible. With that view only he started misappropriating exorbitant amount of money and investing the same in his own business, so that he can get rid of Zubeen Garg without incurring any monitory loss. 35. In reply to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is submitted by Mr. Saikia, learned AG that the petitioner is at flight risk and after the incident, instead of returning back to Guwahati along with the documents, rather, he fled away to Delhi and Rajasthan i.e., the northern States of India for which Look Out Circular Notice had to be issued in all probable Airports against the present petitioner. He was also issued with a Notice under Section 179 BNSS on 26.09.2025 asking the present petitioner to appear on 06.10.2025 before the office of the CID. However, it is a fact that after receiving the notice, he furnished his reply on 29.09.2025 to the office of the CID. But, thereafter, Section 103(1) BNS was added and hence, there was no such necessity of issuing notice and the State respondents/police Investigating team had made all necessary arrangement to apprehend the present petitioner and accordingly he got arrested in connection with this case on 01.10.2025. Page No.# 16/33 Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Saikia, learned AG that there is still a flight risk for the present petitioner and if he is released on bail, there is every possibility of absconding of the present petitioner. 36. Further, present petitioner had deleted all the relevant information and documents etc. from his mobile phone, which was subsequently retrieved by the Investigating Team and being the Manager of deceased Zubeen Garg, it is found that some witnesses are very vulnerable and hence, probability of tempering with the evidences of those witnesses also cannot be denied at this stage. 37. In reply to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in regards to adding of Section 103(1) BNS, it is submitted that the present petitioner is not arrayed as an accused only on the basis of statement made by the co-accused, rather, the SIT team had collected sufficient materials against the present petitioner and accordingly, he was arrested/charge sheeted in the present case. 38. He further submitted that from the charge sheet as well as statements of the witnesses it reveals that there are sufficient materials against the present petitioner, as to how he along with other co-accused hatched a criminal conspiracy to kill the legend Singer Zubeen Garg and that conspiracy was hatched in Guwahati, Assam and finally he was killed/murdered at Singapore. Thus, it is not a case that on the basis of the statement of co-accused, the present petitioner was arrested and Section 103(1) BNS was added by the I.O. 39. In response to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is submitted that they never made any submission to that count that bail also can be rejected on the sentiments of the public and that was also not the observation of the learned Special Judge while rejecting the order of bail Page No.# 17/33 for the present petitioner. 40. Mr. Saikia, learned AG further responded to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for long incarceration, it is submitted by Mr. Saikia, learned AG that the petitioner is admittedly behind the bar since 01.10.2025, but that ground of long incarceration cannot be the sole ground for considering his bail application, when the trial is in progress without any sort of delay and till today, already 25 numbers of witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. 41. Further the learned Special Judge had already framed charge against the present petitioner under Section 103(1) of BNS including the other relevant Sections and the case is at the stage of trial and hence, at this stage there is no question of agitating the adding of Section 103(1) BNS. The trial of the case is progressing in a good pace and within a reasonable period of time, there is every probability of disposal of the present case. 42. Mr. Kamar, learned Senior Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor submitted that 394 numbers of witnesses have been listed by the prosecution and out of those witnesses, a large number of witnesses are found to be informants of this case and hence, the prosecution is going to examine about 100 numbers of witnesses, which are relevant or considered as vital witness for the prosecution and the entire 394 numbers of listed witnesses may not be exhausted by the prosecution, which will also expedite the trial of the case. 43. Mr. Saikia, learned AG further submitted that from the medical documents/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 the medical term, Page No.# 18/33 more than 300 mg ethanol can make coma, respiratory and cardiovascular depression. More so, the deceased is a patient of epilepsy and he was even restricted to consume alcohol and inspite of every knowledge about his health condition, the present petitioner along with the co-accused made a conspiracy and he was given alcohol not only at the room of hotel Panpacific, but also in the yacht party wherein he was offered with a bottle of alcohol by the present petitioner. 44. Mr. Saikia, learned AG accordingly, submitted that the bail of the present petitioner cannot be considered at this stage, only considering this length of detention, wherein it is seen that prima facie a case has been established against the present petitioner. 45. Mr. Kamar, learned Special PP-cum-learned Senior Counsel also relied on a judgment of the 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 46. 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 Page No.# 19/33 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;” 47. 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. 48. 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 Page No.# 20/33 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.” 49. Referring the above judgment of the Apex Court it is submitted by Mr. Kamar, learned Special PP that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, prima facie materials is to be considered before passing the order on bail and also to consider the fact that there is no chance of hampering or tempering with the evidence and whether the accused is at flight risk and accordingly prayed for rejection of the bail prayer of the present petitioner. PETITIONER’S REPLY 50. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in response to the submission made by the State respondents had submitted that the learned AG basically emphasized on the statements made by the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC corresponding to 180 BNSS and the statement made in the charge sheet. But while dealing with a bail application, there is no such requirement to consider the statement made by the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC and there is no requirement to conduct any mini trial. 51. He further submitted that regarding the misappropriation of money, only the aggrieved can challenged that order and in the present case, it is the wife of the deceased, who can challenge the misappropriation of money, if any and the said misappropriation of money as brought by the prosecution also cannot be associated with the death of the legend Singer Zubeen Garg. 52. In that context, it is submitted by Mr. Kamar, learned Special PP that Page No.# 21/33 several FIRs have been lodged in connection with the death of Zubeen Garg, wherein in many FIRs the informant has brought the allegation of misappropriation of money while lodging the FIR in different police station. Mr. Kamar accordingly submitted that it is a fit case, wherein the bail petition of the petitioner, may be rejected/dismissed. DISCUSSION 53. It is the case of the State respondents that the present petitioner is very much involved in the alleged offence. He played an active role in the said conspiracy, wherein he along with other co-accused made a conspiracy to eliminate the legend of Assam Zubeen Garg. He being the manager used to fix/organize all the programmes of deceased Zubeen Garg and since last many years he is looking after all the programmes as well as he is also taking personal care of the deceased Zubeen Garg. Though the accused was a manager of deceased Zubeen Garg, but even he used to consult with doctors and he put his signature in the medical/consent form of Zubeen Garg as a guardian whenever he was admitted in the hospital either for epilepsy or for any other disease. Thus, he had every knowledge about the medical/health condition of deceased Zubeen Garg, who was patient of epilepsy and was restricted to go near the water, fire and also restricted to consume alcohol. 54. But inspite being aware about his health condition, the accused petitioner allowed deceased Zubeen Garg to consume alcohol for the whole night by putting him in the same room with another co-accused Amritprava Mahanta and on the next day morning also without even offering any breakfast, he was brought into the Yacht party, wherein this petitioner also provided a bottle of alcohol to the deceased Zubeen Garg and in a highly intoxicated state, he was allowed to swim in the deep sea water, even without wearing a life jacket. Page No.# 22/33 Further, it is the allegation of the prosecution that he never tried to restrain the deceased from going into the water, rather he encouraged the other persons in the Yacht saying ‘Jabo de’ ‘Jabo de’ (let him go, let him go). He not even tried to rescue the deceased while he was drowning in the sea water. He neither tried to save the deceased, nor, he tried to make arrangement for immediate treatment of the deceased to save his life and all these shows that the accused had the intention to kill the deceased in Singapore and the conspiracy was hatched itself in Guwahati with the other co-accused persons and the plan was accordingly executed in Singapore. 55. It is also the case of the State respondents that when the deceased showed his displeasure with the activities of the present accused and he was also about to take all the audit from him with a view to drive him out of his life, the present petitioner along with the other co-accused had hatched a conspiracy and one programme was organized naming ‘One Last Tour’, wherein they even calculated the profit to be gained from that programme behind the back of the deceased Zubeen Garg. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that conspiracy was hatched to eliminate the legend singer Zubeen Garg from the world in Guwahati, Assam and subsequently it was executed in Singapore. 56. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that he not only hatched the conspiracy, but he also took an active part in room arrangement wherein, the deceased was allowed to stay with the co-accused Amritprava Mahanta and thereby she was asked to give alcohol for the whole night to deceased Zubeen Garg and on the next day morning also in such a state of health, the deceased was brought to the Yacht party, offered alcohol and never restricted him from going into the deep sea water, even without a life jacket and not restricted from consuming alcohol, rather, he offered a bottle of alcohol which was one of the Page No.# 23/33 cause of the death of the deceased Zubeen Garg. 57. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the present accused petitioner had misappropriated huge amount of money and thus, cheated the deceased. In the charge sheet the I.O. also furnished a chart wherein categorically it is stated as to how much money was misappropriated by the present accused, which were received from different Bihu Committees and other functions, wherein deceased Zubeen Garg attended as a star singer. The learned AG also pointed out statement of various witnesses, to show as to how, the accused cheated the deceased Zubeen Garg and with that conspiracy only, he started misappropriating an exorbitant amount of money and invested the same in his own business, so that he can get rid of deceased Zubeen Garg without incurring any monetary loss. 58. The arguments was also made by producing the statements made by the witnesses and the documents which were seized during the investigation and the materials which was collected during investigation against the present accused petitioner, Siddharth Sharma. More so, the State also emphasized on the post mortem report, wherein 333 ml of ethanol was found in the blood of the deceased Zubeen Garg, which is one of the cause of death of deceased Zubeen Garg and such quantity/amount of ethanol was present in the body of the deceased Zubeen Garg only due to conspiracy made by the present accused along with other co-accused persons, who constantly supplied alcohol to the deceased Zubeen Garg for the whole night through co-accused Amritprava Mahanta, who shared the same room with the deceased Zubeen Garg in the hotel Pan Pacific. 59. Mr. Kamar, learned Special PP also submitted during his arguments that the deceased Zubeen Garg had only Rs.9,63,000/- in his bank account and on Page No.# 24/33 the other hand, the present accused had accumulated a huge amount of money, which is more than a crore in his bank account by misappropriating the money and by cheating the deceased Zubeen Garg. 60. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner accused that he is innocent and he was not at all a part of the conspiracy as alleged against him. The petitioner was working as a Manager under deceased Zubeen Garg and his duty was to organize the tour programme, programme to be attended by the deceased Zubeen Garg and other activities like fixing of money etc., was to be looked into by the petitioner being the Manager of the deceased Zubeen Garg. But, as a Manager, he was not supposed to take personal care of the deceased Zubeen Garg and it is not his duty to provide medicine or to take all personal care of the deceased Zubeen Garg. He being the Manager, was assigned with other duties, as stated above and accordingly, it is the case of the petitioner that there is no prima facie case to establish against the petitioner that he was involved in any conspiracy for killing the deceased Zubeen Garg. Further, the money which has alleged to have been misappropriated by the accused is also not related with the death of the deceased Zubeen Garg and for those monetary transactions, another case may be registered against the present petitioner, but that cannot be a ground for any conspiracy to kill deceased Zubeen Garg at Singapore. 61. The deceased Zubeen Garg was never under his control to restrain him from going into the water or consuming alcohol as alleged against him. It is also the case of the accused petitioner that he never fled away from Singapore, rather, he made all necessary arrangement to brought the body of the deceased Zubeen Garg from Singapore to Guwahati and to that regard he obtained all necessary documents and booked the flight tickets for the deceased Zubeen Page No.# 25/33 Garg to bring the dead body of Singer Zubeen Garg from Singapore to Guwahati. He never fled away to any other Country from Singapore and was always ready to extend his cooperation with CID team and hence, even after receipt of notice under Section 179 BNSS on 26.09.2025, he immediately responded to the letter and only prayed for his safety and safety of his family members. But before the date fixed for his appearance before the CID, he got arrested in connection with this case on 01.10.2025. 62. Thus, it is the case of the accused petitioner that he never made any conspiracy and it was completely a case of accidental drowning, wherein Zubeen Garg died due to drowning which reveals as per medical report and in any point of view it cannot be a case of homicidal death and thus, there is no ingredients to book the present petitioner under the said Section of law. 63. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel stressed on the point that Section 103(1) BNS has been added only on the basis of the statements made by the co-accused Shekharjyoti and Amritprava and it is not at all tenable in the eye of law. 64. After analyzing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and on 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 and in spite of the fact that he was a patient of epilepsy, he was allowed to swim in the deep sea water, even without wearing a life jacket. More so, from the materials collected by the I.O., and from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State respondents, it also prima facie reveals that the accused petitioner was working as a Manager under deceased Zubeen Garg and being the Manager, he was not only, doing his duty for organizing the programme or fixing of money etc., but also, he was taking care of the health of deceased Zubeen Page No.# 26/33 Garg and in that context, he being the Manager also put his signature in the consent form and other medical documents as a guardian whenever the deceased Zubeen Garg was admitted in the hospital for epilepsy or for any other disease. 65. 65. From the materials in the case diary it is also seen that he also made the room arrangement in the said Hotel Pan Pacific at Singapore and he with a conspiracy with other co-accused had allowed deceased Zubeen Garg to share the room with co-accused Amritprava with a view to supply alcohol for the whole night to the deceased Zubeen Garg inspite of his knowledge that the deceased was restricted from consuming alcohol. More so, he brought the deceased to the Yacht party wherein he was also offered with a bottle of alcohol by the present petitioner in the Yacht party and he never tried to restrain the deceased Zubeen Garg from swimming in the deep sea water and even he not restricted the deceased to jump into the water, without even wearing a life jacket, rather from the statement made by the witnesses, it is seen that he encouraged the other member of the Yacht party saying ‘Jabo de’, ‘Jabo de’ (let him go, let him go). 66. More so, from the medical report/post mortem report, it is seen that 333 ml of ethanol was found in the body of the deceased Zubeen Garg, which is one of the cause of his death and such quantity/amount of ethanol was present in the body of the deceased, only due to conspiracy made by the present petitioner along with other co-accused to constantly supply alcohol to deceased Zubeen Garg for the whole night through co-accused Amritprava, who shared the same room with deceased Zubeen Garg. 67. Further, from the materials it is seen that the deceased Zubeen Garg showed his displeasure with the activities of the present petitioner and he also Page No.# 27/33 stated before some of the witnesses that he would drive him out from his life and would take audit of the accounts from him as he cheated him for long 7 years. 68. Further, prima facie it reveals from the materials on record that coming to know about the same, the present petitioner hatched a criminal conspiracy with the Manager of the co-accused Shyamkanu Mahanata to organize a last tour programme naming “One Last Tour” behind the back of the deceased Zubeen Garg and in that view a chart was also prepared wherein they also calculated the net profit to be received from organizing those functions and in that view only, he also started misappropriating exorbitant amount of money and investing the same in his own business. 69. It is a fact that the misappropriation of money is a separate subject and to get the appropriate relief, the aggrieved or the survivor of the aggrieved can approach the appropriate forum of law. But, here in the instant case, the matter is quite different wherein, those misappropriations of money is stated to be one of the cause for hatching the criminal conspiracy to eliminate deceased Zubeen Garg from the world when he showed his displeasure with the activities of the present petitioner. 70. Thus, from the materials so far collected by the I.O., the statements of some of the witnesses as well as the statement made in the charge sheet, it is seen that the prosecution could prove a prima facie case against the present petitioner showing his involvement in the alleged offence. 71. Further, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the issue that Section 103(1) BNS i.e., the charge of murder has been added only on the basis of the statements made by the co-accused Shekharjyoti and Amritprava and the Page No.# 28/33 learned JMFC, Kamrup (M) also passed the order accordingly, on the basis of the materials produced before it, which are basically the statements of the co- accused persons. 72. But from the record it is seen that at the time of adding Section 103(1) BNS, the co-accused persons Shekharjyoti and Amritprava were not forwarded as accused in this case, rather, they were forwarded as witnesses, whose statements were recorded by the I.O. during investigation and accordingly, the prayer was made before the learned JMFC praying to add Section 103(1) BNS. 73. Further, from the materials available in the case record, it also reveals that after adding of Section 103(1) BNS the investigation was carried out and during investigation the I.O. had collected sufficient incriminating materials on the basis of which the charge sheet was accordingly filed. Thus, it cannot be stated that only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused Section 103(1) BNS was added during investigation. 74. Further it cannot out-rightly be rejected that there is a flight risk for the present petitioner, if he is released on bail. His previous conduct of fleeing away to Delhi and Rajasthan immediately after the incident, prima facie supports the plea of the prosecution that there is a flight risk of the accused petitioner. It is seen that immediately after the incident, though being the Manager of the deceased Zubeen Garg, he ought to have accompanied the deceased to Guwahati with the dead body, but he fled away to northern India i.e., the States of Delhi and Rajasthan immediately after the incident. However, from the documents it is seen that after receiving notice under Section 179 BNSS, he submitted his reply praying for his safety as well as safety of his family, vide his reply dated 29.09.2025. but after adding of Section 103(1) BNS, he was subsequently arrested on 01.10.2025. Page No.# 29/33 75. From the records, it is also seen that Look Out Circular Notice was also issued by the Investigating authority and subsequently he got arrested in connection with this case. Thus, it cannot be stated that the present petitioner is not at flight risk, if he is allowed to go on bail. That apart, the probability of hampering or tempering with the witnesses and evidence also cannot be denied at this stage. From the record, it is seen that he immediately after the incident had deleted all the relevant data from his mobile handset, which were subsequently retrieved by the Investigating team. Thus, hampering or tempering with the electronic evidences as well as other witnesses also cannot be denied at this stage. 76. It is a fact that a large number of witnesses were listed by the prosecution, which is stated to be 394 in numbers, but from the submission made by Mr. Kamar, learned Special PP, it is seen that all the witnesses are not so relevant for the prosecution case and there is probability of examining about 100 numbers of witnesses in support of the case of the prosecution. 77. At the time of hearing, it is also submitted by Mr. Kamar, learned Spl. PP that 25 numbers of witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution and the recording of evidence is going on day-to-day basis and thus, the probability of conclusion of the trial within a reasonable period can also be expected at this stage. 78. The Supreme Court in the case of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi (supra) 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 Page No.# 30/33 grant of bail given under special enactments like TADA, UAPA and NDPS Act. 79. But herein in the instant case, it is not the case that the present petitioner had undergone prolonged detention for 3/4/5 years, rather, it is seen that within 9/10 months of his detention, the trial had already commenced and till date 25 numbers of witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution. Thus, it is not a case wherein there was a prolonged delay in commencing the trial or there was prolonged incarceration violating the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The bail cannot be granted to the accused mechanically and all facts and circumstances of the case is to be considered at the time of passing the bail order. 80. 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. 81. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mishra also stressed on the point that public outcry and public sentiment cannot be the ground for rejection of bail application and at the same time, an elaborate documentation and detailed examination of evidence also not required at the time of granting bail. Merely because of sentiments of community against an accused, bail cannot be rejected and in that context he also relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit (supra). 82. So the question arises as to whether for public sentiments or outcry, the Page No.# 31/33 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 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, 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. 83. 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. 84. 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.# 32/33 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. 85. Further, the Special Court has already been constituted for dealing with the present case and from the submission made by the learned Special PP, it is seen that till the time of hearing, already 25 numbers of witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution and it also submitted by Mr. Kamar, learned Special PP that though there is 394 of listed witnesses, but probability of examining 100 numbers of witnesses are there which would be found to be relevant in the instant case. 86. So, merely considering the number of witnesses, the bail prayer for the present petitioner cannot be considered at this stage, considering the alleged offence and materials against him at this stage and the magnitude of the consequences of alleged conspiracy in the murder of legend Singer Zubeen Garg, which had a devastating effect on the society at large. 87. So, considering the long list of prosecution witnesses and the period of detention of 9 (nine) 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. 88. 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. 89. Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioner, Siddharth Sharma in Page No.# 33/33 connection with Sessions Case No. 256/2025 arising out of FIR No. 18/2025 registered at CID under Sections 3(6)/3(7)/3(8)/61(2) read with Section 103(1) and substantive offences thereof under Sections 61(2), read with Section 316(5) and substantive offence thereof of the BNS, 2023, Police Station, Ulubari, Assam pending before the Exclusive Fast Track Sessions Judge, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati stands rejected. 90. Any observation made hereinabove in this bail application, the learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by it, while adjudicating the said Sessions Case No. 256/2025 arising out of FIR dated 18/2025. 91. This bail application accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant