More Noise Than Proof? Why the Zubeen Garg Case Faces a Legal Test

Serious legal and procedural questions have been raised over the police charge sheet filed in the Zubeen Garg case, with Sibsagar MLA Akhil Gogoi alleging that the document is fundamentally flawed and incapable of delivering justice to the late singer.

According to Gogoi, the charge sheet is “a myth” and has been prepared not to secure conviction but to politically manage the case until the 2026 Assembly elections. He alleged that the accused are being deliberately kept in custody for electoral mileage, only to be gradually granted bail after the elections conclude.

“A charge sheet submitted by the police cannot ensure justice for Zubeen Garg,” Gogoi said, calling it his “final statement” on the matter.

Allegations of a Baseless Charge Sheet

Gogoi questioned the very foundation of the charge sheet, asserting that it lacks proper evidence, credible eyewitness testimonies, and essential documentary proof. He claimed this was inevitable because the investigation was conducted under direct orders of the Assam government.

He alleged that the investigation remains incomplete, as neither the Chief Investigating Officer nor the Investigating Officers of the SIT under the Assam CID visited the crime scene or place of occurrence with the accused. No reconstruction of the incident was carried out.

Further, Gogoi pointed out that no proper videography or photography was undertaken to prepare a legitimate sketch map of the crime scene. Instead, he alleged, the investigating officers prepared the charge sheet “while sitting in Guwahati,” without visiting the spot.

“Nowhere in the world can justice be delivered to Zubeen Garg with such a charge sheet. Justice cannot be served by sitting in Guwahati and issuing statements,” Gogoi said.
“This is not a proper charge sheet. No credible testimonies, no concrete evidence have been collected. It is based on false narratives. Such actions may create noise or moral posturing, but they do not lead to convictions.”

BNSS, Foreign Jurisdiction, and Changing Government Stands

Targeting Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, Gogoi accused him of changing statements on a day-to-day basis regarding the legal feasibility of the investigation.

Gogoi pointed out that initially the Chief Minister himself had stated that a proper investigation into Zubeen Garg’s death was not possible, as the incident occurred in a foreign country and required prior permission from the Central Government. However, after public criticism, the Assam government reportedly sought permission under Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) on the singer’s birthday in November last year.

However, Gogoi asserted that a more crucial legal provision—Section 112 of the BNSS—was never invoked.

Section 112 empowers a criminal court to issue a Letter of Request to a competent foreign authority for:

• Examination of individuals

• Recording of statements

• Collection of documents or materials relevant to the investigation

Evidence collected through this process is deemed legally admissible under BNSS, provided the request is transmitted in a manner specified by the Central Government.

“This is clearly written in Section 112 of the BNSS,” Gogoi said.
“But the Assam government chose to rely on Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs), which are inadmissible in court.”

Citing precedent, Gogoi referred to observations made during the trial in the J. Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case, where courts reportedly held that evidence collected solely through MLATs is inadmissible unless properly routed through a court-issued Letter of Request.

He further claimed that the Assam government neither approached the Singapore court nor the competent authority of the Singapore government through such a legal mechanism.

“This proves that the Assam government collected evidence only through MLATs and not through a Letter of Request,” Gogoi alleged.

Singapore’s Findings vs Assam’s Murder Theory

Gogoi emphasized that even if evidence collected through MLATs is considered, justice is unlikely to prevail. He recalled that the Singapore government had officially concluded that Zubeen Garg died due to drowning and found no foul play—a finding that was also publicly acknowledged by the Assam government through a press conference addressed by the Chief Minister himself.

“Singapore clearly stated there was no foul play,” Gogoi said.

The Yacht Angle: Missing Witnesses and Unanswered Questions

Referring to the alleged involvement of a Singapore-registered yacht, Gogoi claimed that the charge sheet is speculative and incomplete. He noted that:

• The yacht captain’s testimony was never recorded

• The person who allowed Zubeen to swim without a life jacket was never interrogated

• The consent form permitting swimming was not seized

• It remains unclear whether the authorities knew Zubeen was an epilepsy patient

“If it is proven that the captain allowed an epilepsy patient to swim without a life jacket, he could be jailed or even sentenced to death,” Gogoi claimed.

He further questioned how a charge sheet could be considered complete without statements from:

• The yacht captain

• Doctors who first treated Zubeen

• Police officers who detained Siddharth and others

• Rescue team members who retrieved the body

• The doctor who conducted the first post-mortem in Singapore

Gogoi alleged that the charge sheet was designed to protect the accused and prevent them from filing bail pleas until elections conclude.

“There will be no real trial. At the stage of framing charges, they will get bail because there is no evidence,” he said.

Political Accountability

Gogoi also asserted that a fair and comprehensive investigation is impossible unless Union Minister of State Pabitra Margherita is arrested and questioned.

Legal Experts: The Real Test Lies Ahead

He explained that statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC (now Section 180 of the BNSS), forensic evidence, seizure documents, and electronic records will determine the trajectory of the case.

“Nothing in a charge sheet can be treated as gospel truth,” Bhuyan said, noting that courts have previously diluted murder charges when intent could not be established.

Murder Charge Hinges on Proof of Intent

Bhuyan clarified that the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court is merely a committal court. The accused are scheduled to appear on December 16, after which the case will move to the sessions court.

Only during the framing of charges will it become clear whether the evidence supports a murder charge under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Jurisdiction and Post-Mortem: The Hardest Legal Questions

The most complex challenge, Bhuyan noted, is jurisdiction. While Indian law allows investigation of crimes committed abroad, complications arise when a foreign police agency has already investigated the matter.

The Singapore post-mortem report—reportedly concluding death by drowning—constitutes substantive evidence. The prosecution will have to convincingly reconcile that medical finding with its murder theory.

The claim that Zubeen Garg, an epilepsy patient, was deliberately exposed to water as part of a conspiracy must be proven through strong direct and circumstantial evidence.

Justice Will Be Decided in Court, Not by Paperwork

Ultimately, justice for Zubeen Garg will not be determined by the length of a charge sheet, the gravity of charges invoked, or political assurances. It will depend on whether the investigation can answer the hardest questions, withstand cross-examination, and reconcile international findings with domestic accusations.

Also Read: From Drowning to Murder: How the Court Will Test the Case for Justice for Zubeen Garg