Court Delays Charge Framing in Zubeen Garg Death Case

Court Proceedings Update

On January 3, a special court convened for the third time regarding the high-profile case surrounding the enigmatic death of cultural figure Zubeen Garg. The court decided to postpone the charge framing, allowing the defense more time to prepare their case.

Judge Gautam Bora adjourned the session after the defense attorney highlighted the extensive nature of the chargesheet and the inconsistencies in the documentation, necessitating additional time.

Apurba Kumar Sharma, the general secretary of the Lawyers’ Association in Guwahati, noted that the charge framing was anticipated during this hearing but could not proceed due to recent developments.

During this stage, the attorney for Amritprabha Mahanta filed a bail request and participated in the proceedings. Given the case's complexity, the defense requested more time, while the government attorney indicated plans to contest the bail applications.

The two primary defendants, Shyamkanu Mahanta and Siddharth Sharma, have secured legal representation, while Sandeepan Garg and Paresh Baishya are being defended by attorneys appointed through legal aid.

Siddharth Sharma has engaged Supreme Court lawyer Anil Mishra, while Mahanta has chosen a lawyer from Kolkata.

Sharma mentioned that senior counsel Mishra, representing Siddharth Sharma, also requested time to present arguments regarding the charge framing, citing the extensive documentation involved.

Mahanta's counsel from Kolkata also sought additional time, stating they had not received all necessary documents, only a pen drive so far. Consequently, they have not yet submitted a bail application.

Bail requests have been filed only for Sandeepan Garg, Amritprabha Mahanta, and Paresh Baishya up to this point.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for January 17. However, the government attorney expressed concerns that this date might not be practical due to the case's complexity.

Sharma emphasized that the chargesheet's extensive nature requires more than one government advocate to manage effectively. He pointed out that the current public prosecutor is stretched thin, having to move between the main District and Sessions Court and the additional court, which hampers the proceedings.

He stated, "This case necessitates a robust prosecution team of at least 10 to 12 members. The Chief Minister had promised the formation of such a team, but it has yet to be established. Once a capable team is in place, the prosecution's quality will improve, leading to more effective justice delivery."