The Zubeen Garg Case CID Probe has taken a fresh turn after the Exclusive Fast Track Sessions Court, Kamrup (Metro), directed the Assam Criminal Investigation Department to investigate how a prosecution witness’s statement reached social media. The court also directed the Inspector General of Prisons to take appropriate action over a separate procedural lapse involving the Superintendent of Baksa District Jail.
The developments came during ongoing proceedings in the case concerning the death of singer Zubeen Garg. The latest directions focus on the handling and disclosure of court-related material rather than announcing any new finding on the cause of his death or the guilt of any accused.
Special Assistance to States Scheme: Northeast Gets Fresh Capital Investment Support
Zubeen Garg Case CID Probe: Court Orders Investigation Into Witness Statement Leak
The Zubeen Garg Case CID Probe follows a court direction issued during ongoing defence and prosecution proceedings. The order came after concerns over the alleged publication of a witness statement on social media.
According to reports, the statement belonged to prosecution witness Prateem Lahkar, listed as PW-118 in the case. A magistrate recorded his statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
The court heard that social-media posts allegedly reproduced parts of the statement. The issue came up while Lahkar faced cross-examination before the Exclusive Fast Track Sessions Court.
Counsel for Zubeen Garg’s widow, Garima Garg Saikia, brought two social-media posts to the court’s attention. The court then directed the Assam CID to examine how the statement reached the public.
Zubeen Garg Case CID Probe Examines Witness Statement Publication
The court has asked the Assam CID to determine how the statement was obtained and published. Furthermore, the agency must submit a detailed report based on its findings.
The direction concerns material linked to an ongoing criminal trial. However, it does not establish who obtained or circulated the document.
Reports said the social-media posts included the statement recorded before a magistrate. They also reportedly showed a copy carrying the magistrate’s signature and seal.
The court considered the alleged publication significant enough to order a separate inquiry. Moreover, the investigation will focus on the circumstances surrounding the disclosure.
The CID will therefore need to establish how the document became available outside the judicial process. Investigators may also examine whether anyone breached legal or procedural requirements.
The development highlights the difference between evidence used in court and material circulated publicly. A witness statement can form part of the judicial record. However, the court decides its evidentiary significance within the trial.
Consequently, the latest CID assignment does not represent a fresh investigation into the entire death case. Instead, it focuses on the alleged obtaining and publication of one witness statement.
Baksa Jail Official Faces Court-Directed Action
The court also raised a separate issue involving the Superintendent of Baksa District Jail. This matter concerns documents connected with accused Shyamkanu Mahanta.
According to court-related reports, the jail superintendent submitted documents bearing Mahanta’s signature. However, those documents reportedly differed from the papers that the court had sent to the jail.
The court consequently directed the superintendent to obtain Mahanta’s signature only on the documents sent by the court. It also ordered the jail authorities to resend the signed documents with the original court papers.
Furthermore, the court directed that its order be sent to the Inspector General of Prisons, Assam. The IG Prisons must take appropriate action according to law and submit a report to the court.
The matter therefore remains subject to the administrative process that follows the court’s direction. The subsequent report should provide greater clarity on any action against the jail superintendent.
Importantly, the reported documentation lapse does not establish deliberate misconduct. The court has ordered action and a report. The relevant authorities will determine the consequences after examining the matter.
Zubeen Garg Death Case Continues Before Fast-Track Court
The latest developments come as the main criminal proceedings continue before the Exclusive Fast Track Sessions Court in Kamrup (Metro).
The court has already framed charges against seven accused in the case. They include North East India Festival organiser Shyamkanu Mahanta and Zubeen Garg’s manager Shiddarth Sharma.
The accused also include band members Shekharjyoti Goswami and Amritprabha Mahanta. Zubeen’s cousin Sandipon Garg and personal security officers Nandeswar Borah and Paresh Baishya also face charges.
Meanwhile, the prosecution continues to examine witnesses as the trial progresses. Earlier in September, Parikshit Sarma appeared before the fast-track court and recorded his statement.
Sarma is among the Assamese NRIs in Singapore who received summons in connection with the case. His appearance adds to the ongoing witness examination before the court.
The proceedings have therefore reached a significant evidentiary stage. Witness testimony, cross-examination and documentary evidence will contribute to the court’s eventual assessment.
At the same time, the latest CID direction adds another procedural issue to the trial. It concerns whether judicial material was improperly circulated outside the courtroom.
The witness-statement issue and the Baksa jail matter remain separate from the substantive allegations against the accused. Therefore, neither development should automatically be treated as a finding on the main criminal charges.
Zubeen Garg Case CID Probe Could Trace Document Access
The Assam CID will now examine how the witness statement allegedly reached two media platforms. The court’s order reportedly asks the agency to investigate both its acquisition and publication.
Investigators may need to establish how someone accessed the Section 183 BNSS statement. They may also examine whether anyone shared the document without proper authority.
Furthermore, the CID could verify whether the document circulating online matches the original witness statement. If confirmed, investigators may then examine how the document left the authorised judicial process.
The court has also directed the CID to submit a detailed report. Therefore, the investigation will focus on establishing the relevant facts rather than relying on speculation.
Any action against individuals will depend on the investigation’s findings. The applicable legal provisions will also determine what steps authorities can take.
The inquiry reflects the court’s concern about protecting the integrity of an ongoing trial. Witnesses provide evidence through prescribed judicial procedures. The court then evaluates that evidence within the applicable rules of criminal procedure.
Prison Documentation Issue Adds to Court Scrutiny
The separate Baksa jail matter highlights the importance of accurate documentation during criminal proceedings.
When a court sends documents to a prison for an accused person’s signature, the returned papers should match the original material. Any discrepancy can create procedural uncertainty and require clarification.
In this case, the court reportedly found a difference between the documents bearing Shyamkanu Mahanta’s signature and those originally sent by the court.
The court therefore issued specific instructions for obtaining signatures on the correct documents. It also ordered the authorities to resubmit the relevant material.
The direction to the IG Prisons shows that the court expects a formal response from the prison administration. The subsequent report will clarify whether officials face disciplinary or administrative action.
However, the reported documentation lapse does not by itself show that the criminal trial has been compromised. The court continues to hear the substantive case separately.
Therefore, both recent developments mainly concern procedural scrutiny during the ongoing trial.
Next Steps in the Zubeen Garg Case
The immediate next steps involve the CID inquiry and the continuing court proceedings. The CID must investigate the alleged publication of Lahkar’s witness statement.
The agency must then submit its findings to the court. Meanwhile, the Inspector General of Prisons must report on action concerning the Baksa jail superintendent.
The court will consider those responses along with any additional material placed before it. The main trial will also continue with witness examination and cross-examination.
Reports indicated that all seven accused remained in judicial custody. The court had scheduled the next hearing for September 14.
Consequently, the latest developments do not conclude the wider case. Instead, they add specific procedural questions that authorities must address during the trial.
Conclusion
The Zubeen Garg Case CID Probe follows the fast-track court’s concern over the alleged publication of prosecution witness Prateem Lahkar’s statement on social media.
The Assam CID must investigate how the Section 183 BNSS statement was obtained and published. It must also submit a detailed report to the court.
Separately, the court directed the Inspector General of Prisons to take appropriate action over a documentation issue at Baksa District Jail. The court found that signed documents did not match the papers originally sent to the jail.
These developments add procedural scrutiny to the ongoing criminal trial. However, they do not by themselves establish guilt or deliberate misconduct.
The CID inquiry, the prison administration’s response and the continuing court proceedings will determine the next stage of these matters.
FAQs
What is the Zubeen Garg Case CID Probe about?
The Zubeen Garg Case CID Probe concerns the court’s direction to investigate how a prosecution witness’s statement recorded before a magistrate was allegedly obtained and published on social media.
Whose statement is being investigated?
The statement belongs to prosecution witness Prateem Lahkar, who is listed as PW-118 in the case. His statement was recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Why was the Baksa jail superintendent asked to face action?
The court found a procedural discrepancy involving documents submitted with the signature of accused Shyamkanu Mahanta. The documents bearing his signature reportedly differed from those originally sent by the court.
Has the CID established who leaked the witness statement?
No. The court has ordered the CID to investigate how the statement was obtained and published. The identity of anyone responsible remains a matter for the investigation.
Is the main Zubeen Garg trial still continuing?
Yes. The fast-track court continues to hear the case, including witness examination and other proceedings. Seven accused have been charged in the case.
