The tragic drowning of iconic Assamese singer Zubeen Garg during a yacht trip in Singapore has taken a critical legal turn. The Supreme Court of India recently stepped in, issuing a formal notice to the Assam Police regarding a bail application filed by event organizer Shyam Kanu Mahanta. A judicial bench consisting of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi demanded a response from the state, setting the return date for the end of July. This move reopens the intense scrutiny surrounding the singer's sudden demise and the alleged actions of those who managed the fateful trip.
Mahanta, who has been in custody since October 2025, is fighting a previous decision by the Gauhati High Court that rejected his freedom. His legal team strongly argues that he poses absolutely no flight risk, noting that his passport is already held by authorities and he lacks the financial means to flee. They maintain that the incident was nothing more than a heartbreaking, accidental drowning. However, the prosecution paints a completely different, highly calculated picture of the events that led to the tragedy.
The core of the state's criminal case rests on a severe allegation: conspiracy and deliberate exposure to lethal danger. Authorities argue that Mahanta, as the organizer of the North East India Festival in Singapore, was fully aware of the singer’s fragile medical history. The prosecution claims that despite knowing the artist had undergone alcohol de-addiction treatment, suffered from epilepsy, and had explicit medical advice to avoid both alcohol and water activities, Mahanta actively arranged the yacht trip and facilitated the supply of hard liquor.
Further compounding the charges, prosecutors allege that the organizer systematically altered hotel room arrangements to ensure alcohol was continuously accessible to the singer. They argue that he had multiple windows of opportunity to cancel the dangerous boat excursion but chose to do nothing. To back their claims, investigators have pointed to post-mortem toxicology reports showing a staggering 333 mg of ethanol in the singer's system, alongside witness statements corroborating the continuous supply of drinks.
The state also raises serious alarms about Mahanta’s behavior immediately following the incident. According to court records, he allegedly fled to Malaysia right after the drowning, forcing authorities to issue look-out circulars and alert Interpol before eventually arresting him at the Delhi airport. Furthermore, the prosecution accuses him of attempting to destroy vital digital evidence by wiping phone chats and data, while issuing heavily contradictory statements to the public to shield himself.
Defending his innocence, Mahanta insists that he was simply a co-organizer of a festival running under the official aegis of the High Commission of India. He claims he went out of his way to instruct hotel staff not to serve alcohol to the singer and stresses that he was not even present on the yacht when the drowning occurred. He claims his quick trip to Malaysia was a routine family visit, not an attempt to escape justice.
Despite these defenses, lower courts have refused to budge, stating that the initial evidence heavily points to a deeper conspiracy. With nearly 400 witnesses lined up and charges still being finalized, the legal battle has now reached the highest court in the land. The upcoming July response from the Assam Police will likely decide whether the organizer awaits his high-profile trial from a jail cell or out on bail.