Court allows document inspection, reserves orders on key petitions in Zubeen Garg Case
The District & Sessions Court directed defence counsel to inspect case documents within three days, and heard arguments on frozen bank accounts
Arrival of Zubeen Garg's mortal remains in Guwahati. (Photo: Adil Hussain/X)
Guwahati, Feb 13: The Court of the District and Sessions Judge on Friday directed the defence counsel to inspect the case documents within the court premises, granting a total of three days for the inspection, while reserving orders on other key petitions in the Zubeen Garg murder case.
The direction came during a virtual hearing in which Special Public Prosecutor Ziaul Kamar moved six applications, while the defence filed three petitions on behalf of the accused.
Advocate Rajdeep Banerjee appeared for accused Shyamkanu Mahanta, and advocate Anil Mishra represented Siddharth.
The first petition concerned alleged non-supply of certain documents in both hard and soft copy formats.
Arguing for Shyamkanu, advocate Rajdeep Banerjee clarified that the defence was not claiming a complete non-supply of documents but contended that several materials listed in the charge sheet and seizure lists had not been properly furnished.
“We have marked certain documents as ‘T-series’. The hard copies supplied are scattered and incomplete in structure, and no soft copies have been provided to the accused,” he submitted.
The defence also pointed out that although seizure lists dated September 23, 2025, September 26, 2025, and October 1, 2025, were shared, the detailed contents of a seized 16GB pen drive had not been supplied in cloned format. According to the defence, only a list of seized items was provided without descriptive details.
Citing legal precedents, Banerjee argued that even non-relied documents should be made available to ensure a fair trial.
The prosecution countered that all documents required to be furnished had already been supplied.
The Special Public Prosecutor submitted that hard copies of relevant documents were provided and that certain materials could not be duplicated due to technical or procedural constraints.
After hearing both sides, the Court observed that hard copies had been made available to the defence and directed that the physical documents be inspected within the court premises. A period of three days was granted to Banerjee for the inspection.
The second petition, filed by Shyamkanu Mahanta’s wife, challenged the freezing of their bank accounts.
The defence argued that the prosecution had not clearly quantified the alleged tainted money on the basis of which the accounts were frozen. Reference was made to provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), contending that such freezing without clear computation of proceeds of crime was unsustainable.
In response, the prosecution stated that only two accounts were frozen in connection with alleged cheating of receipts, while three other accounts where no incriminating evidence was found were not frozen.
Advocate Anil Mishra representing Siddharth Sharma requested that his objections on the issue of “tainted money” be heard in detail on the next date of hearing, and that an appropriate order be passed thereafter.
The third petition related to a prayer by Siddharth and one of his associates seeking that a particular plant not be seized. The prosecution submitted an application seeking seizure of the plant on the same day, which was opposed by the defence. The Court reserved its order on this matter as well.
The Court fixed February 16 as the next date of hearing. The proceedings will focus on objections to the applications submitted on Friday, and orders are expected to be passed on the same day.
Outside the courtroom, advocate Apurba Sarma expressed concern over the pace of proceedings. He urged for more regular hearings in the case, stating that prolonged delays could stretch the matter over decades.
“If the matter continues at this pace, it may take 20 to 30 years for final disposal. Regular and time-bound hearings are essential in a case of such public importance,” he said.
Zubeen’s wife Garima Saikia Garg and sister Palme Borthakur were also present during the hearing.
Speaking to reporters, Garima expressed hope for an expedited trial and appropriate punishment for those found guilty.
“We are expecting a fair and speedy conclusion. The accused, if proven guilty, should receive the punishment they deserve,” she said.
Palme Borthakur also called for an early resolution, remarking that the prolonged process was creating confusion and emotional strain for the family.
By- Md Sahil Ahmed Choudhury