Gauhati HC hears 4 PILs on speedy trial in Zubeen case, next hearing on Apr 2

Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court on Friday heard four PILs seeking its intervention for an expeditious trial in the Zubeen Garg death case, even as the district and sessions judge’s court here fixed March 19 for consideration of charges against Shyamkanu Mahanta, one of the seven accused.

Gauhati HC advocate Sandeep Chamaria, who filed a petition before the high court on Sept 24 last year, five days after Zubeen’s death in Singapore, said the PIL sought a direction for a CBI probe.

“The court was informed by the govt that an investigation was initiated into the case. 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,” he said.

Chamaria said the investigating agency later completed the probe and filed a chargesheet before a court.

“This development was brought to the notice of the high court by the state govt. Again, the matter was deferred for next date, on which, the govt submitted their chargesheet copy before the court and based on that, the matter was again deferred for another date that is April 2,” he added.

He said the case is now pending before the district and sessions judge’s court for 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,” he added.

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 counsel moved a petition before the trial court, saying the case had been fixed on March 10, 11 and 12 for “inspection of documents” from 2pm to 4pm.

The defence said the conducting senior advocate could not be present for inspection of the chargesheet documents because of the ensuing bar council election in West Bengal. It said 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 said “inspection was conducted in a hurried and perfunctory manner without allowing sufficient time and opportunity to meaningfully inspect large volumes of documents.” The defence sought more time for inspection.

The court rejected the claim of inadequate cooperation, noting: “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 by prosecution officials or by court staff before this court.”

Saying it did not find sufficient force in the petition, the court nevertheless allowed Shyamkanu Mahanta to inspect the documents again on March 16 and fixed March 19 for consideration of charges.