The Supreme Court on June 23, 2026 issued notice to the State of Assam on a bail plea filed by Shyamkanu Mahanta, the organiser of the North East India Festival (NEIF) and the principal accused in the death of celebrated Assamese singer Zubeen Garg.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order on SLP (Crl.) 11523/2026, which challenges a May 29, 2026 Gauhati High Court order that had rejected Mahanta’s application for bail, according to LiveLaw.
Background: How We Got Here
Zubeen Garg, one of Assam’s most beloved singers, died on September 19, 2025, when he drowned near Lazarus Island in Singapore during a yacht trip. He was due to perform at the NEIF — organised by Mahanta — the very next day.
Singapore authorities, including a coroner’s court, concluded that Garg drowned while under the influence of alcohol and found no evidence of foul play. Assam Police and its CID-SIT, however, reached different conclusions and launched a criminal investigation.
- Mahanta was arrested on October 1, 2025 — approximately nine months before the Supreme Court hearing — and has remained in continuous judicial custody since then, as reported by Bar & Bench.
- A chargesheet was filed in December 2025 naming seven accused, with Mahanta facing charges under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 103(1) (murder), Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), Section 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), Section 238 (causing disappearance of evidence), Section 308(2) (extortion), and Section 318(4) (cheating), per LiveLaw.
- The State alleged that after Garg’s death, Mahanta fled to Malaysia, necessitating a lookout circular and Interpol alerts before he was eventually apprehended at Delhi airport, according to LiveLaw and the Free Press Journal.
The prosecution’s case rests on the allegation that Mahanta, despite being aware that Garg suffered from epilepsy, had undergone alcohol de-addiction treatment, and was medically advised to avoid alcohol, fire, and water-related activities, deliberately supplied him with alcohol and organised the fatal yacht trip.
A post-mortem examination reportedly found 333 mg of ethanol in Garg’s body. The State contends he was continuously supplied alcohol in violation of his known medical restrictions, per LiveLaw.
The Gauhati High Court, when it rejected Mahanta’s bail on May 29, 2026, cited the prosecution’s list of 394 witnesses, the constitution of a Special Fast Track Court for trial, and held that approximately eight months in custody did not constitute prolonged incarceration, according to LiveLaw.
Four other co-accused — Sandipan Garg, Amritprabha Mahanta, Nandeshwar Bora, and Paresh Baishya — were also denied bail by the Special Fast Track Court, per National Herald India.
Separately, Mahanta has also approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the investigation to the CBI or NIA and consolidation of over 50 FIRs filed against him across multiple states, as reported by Bar & Bench.
The Ruling — Key Findings
On June 23, 2026, the bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took up SLP (Crl.) 11523/2026 and issued a two-word direction that kept the matter alive: “Issue notice,” according to Bar & Bench and LiveLaw.
The State of Assam accepted notice in court on the same day. The bench thereafter directed the matter to be listed for hearing at the end of July 2026. One source, the Free Press Journal, notes that the Supreme Court’s own website lists August 10 as the next date of hearing.
No bail was granted. Mahanta remains in judicial custody as the court awaits the State’s formal reply to his petition.
Reactions & What’s Next
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Mahanta before the Supreme Court, sought to characterise his client as neither a flight risk nor a financially capable fugitive. He argued before the bench: “Person dies of drowning. There is no flight risk, I don’t have money, my passport is deposited.”
Assam’s Advocate General Devajit Lon Saikia had earlier opposed bail before the Gauhati High Court, per newsarenaindia.com. The State’s formal reply to the Supreme Court is now awaited ahead of the next scheduled hearing at end of July 2026 — or August 10 as listed on the court website, per the Free Press Journal.
The case has drawn significant public attention in Assam. Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has publicly described Garg’s death as “a plain and simple murder,” and over 60 FIRs have been filed across India in connection with the incident.
More legal news at The Courtroom.
What is SLP (Crl.) 11523/2026 in the Zubeen Garg death case?
SLP (Crl.) 11523/2026 is the Special Leave Petition filed by Shyamkanu Mahanta before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the Gauhati High Court’s May 29, 2026 order that rejected his bail application in the Zubeen Garg death case, per LiveLaw.
Why was Shyamkanu Mahanta denied bail by the Gauhati High Court?
The Gauhati High Court, presided over by Justice Mitali Thakuria, rejected Mahanta’s bail citing the prosecution’s 394 witnesses, the constitution of a Special Fast Track Court, and held that his approximately eight months in custody did not amount to prolonged incarceration, according to LiveLaw.
What charges does Shyamkanu Mahanta face under the BNS?
Mahanta faces charges under BNS Sections 103(1) (murder), 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), 238 (causing disappearance of evidence), 308(2) (extortion), 318(4) (cheating), and Sections 3(6), 3(7), and 3(8), as listed in the chargesheet per LiveLaw.
How did Zubeen Garg die, and what did Singapore authorities conclude?
Zubeen Garg drowned on September 19, 2025, near Lazarus Island in Singapore during a yacht trip. Singapore’s coroner’s court concluded he drowned while under the influence of alcohol and found no evidence of foul play. Assam Police’s CID-SIT reached different conclusions and filed a murder chargesheet, per National Herald India and Bar & Bench.
Disclaimer
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws may change or vary by case — consult a qualified lawyer before acting. The Courtroom is not liable for any reliance on this content.
