Gauhati High Court Hears PILs for Expedited Trial in Zubeen Garg Death Case
The Gauhati High Court on Friday conducted hearings on four Public Interest Litigations (PILs) that seek its intervention to ensure an expeditious trial in the high-profile Zubeen Garg death case. This development occurred simultaneously as the district and sessions judge's court in Guwahati scheduled March 19 for the consideration of charges against Shyamkanu Mahanta, one of the seven individuals accused in the case.
Background and Legal Proceedings
Advocate Sandeep Chamaria, who filed one of the PILs before the high court on September 24 last year—just five days after Zubeen Garg's death in Singapore—revealed that the petition specifically requested a direction for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe. "The court was informed by the government that an investigation had been initiated into the case," Chamaria stated. "Following this, the court fixed the hearing of the PIL in December, stating that it was better to wait for some time. Accordingly, the matter was deferred for a further date."
Chamaria further explained that the investigating agency later completed its probe and filed a chargesheet before the appropriate court. "This development was brought to the notice of the high court by the state government. Again, the matter was deferred for the next date, on which the government submitted their chargesheet copy before the court. Based on that, the matter was again deferred for another date, which is April 2," he added.
Currently, the case is pending before the district and sessions judge's court for the consideration of charges against the accused. "This development was brought to the notice of the high court. Now, the matter would again be taken up for further consideration on April 2 by the high court," Chamaria confirmed.
Trial Court Proceedings and Defense Petitions
Meanwhile, all seven accused—Shyamkanu Mahanta, Siddharth Sharma, Sekhar Jyoti Goswami, Amritprava Mahanta, Sandipon Garg, Nandeswar Borah, and Paresh Baishya—were produced virtually before the trial court on Friday. Shyamkanu Mahanta's legal counsel moved a petition before the trial court, highlighting that the case had been fixed on March 10, 11, and 12 for "inspection of documents" from 2 PM to 4 PM each day.
The defense argued that the conducting senior advocate could not be present for the inspection of the chargesheet documents due to the ensuing bar council election in West Bengal. It was stated that a junior counsel appeared instead, but during the inspection, "they did not receive proper cooperation or assistance from the concerned prosecution officials and court staff."
The petition further contended that "inspection was conducted in a hurried and perfunctory manner without allowing sufficient time and opportunity to meaningfully inspect large volumes of documents." Consequently, the defense sought additional time for a more thorough inspection.
Court's Response and Ruling
The court, however, rejected the claim of inadequate cooperation. It noted: "The inspection detail sheet maintained by the office reflects that engaged counsel Kunika Das for accused Shyamkanu Mahanta inspected the documents on March 10, 11, and 12, and counsel Ankita Dutta for him inspected the documents on March 10 and 11. During inspection, Kunika Das and Ankita Dutta have not raised any contention that they were not cooperated with by prosecution officials or by court staff before this court."
While stating that it did not find sufficient force in the petition, the court nevertheless allowed Shyamkanu Mahanta to inspect the documents again on March 16. Subsequently, it fixed March 19 as the date for the consideration of charges, moving the legal process forward in this closely watched case.
