BREAKING | Supreme Court Declines Congress Leader Pawan Khera's Plea To Extend Transit Anticipatory Bail In Assam FIR

The Supreme Court on Friday (April 17) declined Congress leader Pawan Khera's plea to vacate the stay imposed by it on the transit anticipatory bail granted to him by the Telangana High Court in the forgery and criminal conspiracy case lodged by the Assam Police on Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma.

The Court also turned down Khera's plea to extend the transit bail till next Tuesday so that he can approach the Assam Court on Monday. The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar observed that if the concerned Court is not functioning, a request can be made to take up the matter, which be considered in accordance with the prevailing practice.

The bench also clarified that neither the observations in the High Court's order nor the Supreme Court's stay order should influence the concerned Court while considering Khera's application for anticipatory bail.

For context, the case was registered by Assam Police on the complaint of Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, over Khera's allegations that she held multiple passports of different countries.

On April 10, the Telangana High Court granted Khera transit anticipatory bail for a week. The State of Assam approached the Supreme Court challenging it. On April 15, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court's order. Khera later filed an application seeking vacation of the stay order.

Arguments in Court today 

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singvhi, for Khera, sought that the transit bail be extended till next Tuesday, so that he can approach the Assam Court on Monday.

At this juncture, Justice Maheshwari pointed out the argument of the Solicitor General that Khera filed the petition in the High Court by producing the front of his Aadhaar card and the backside of his wife's Aadhaar card to show residence in Telangana. The SG had argued that the High Court relief was obtained on a fabricated document.

Singhvi submitted that the High Court petition was filed in a hurry and a mix-up of documents happened. He added that before the High Court, further documents were produced to show that Khera's wife has residence in Telangana, and that she was a Telugu who contested Telangana assembly elections. He submitted that the Supreme Court, on April 15, ex-parte stayed the High Court, solely on the Solicitor General's arguments regarding Khera's wife's Aadhaar card.

Singhvi stated that the High Court has recorded these documents in paragraph 18 of the order, and that the Assam Advocate General, who was present in the hearing before the High Court, was handed over the documents.

But the bench was not inclined to extend the time. Singhvi asked for an extension till Tuesday. "Today is Friday, I am filing on Monday. Am I a hardened criminal so as to deny even this relief?" Singhvi asked.

Justice Maheshwari then asked what was wrong with the Supreme Court's stay order. Singhvi replied that the order was obtained by misleading the Court. This submission was not appreciated by Justice Maheshwari, who pointed out that Khera produced a wrong document before the High Court.

Singhvi argued that personal liberty should not be violated for a "small error" in filing the document, which was corrected later during the hearing with notice to the Assam AG. "Small error? You are saying this is a small error?" Justice Maheshwari asked.

Singhvi said that the Court stayed the High Court's order under the impression that the mistake in the document was forgery. He claimed that it was a genuine mistake, and there was no forgery, as the mistake was clarified before the High Court itself.

He added that in a FIR, which was in essence a defamation complaint, hundreds of Assam police were hunting for Khera. Asking if such a State reaction was warranted, Singhvi pleaded for an extension till next Tuesday.

Justice Maheshwari said that the petitioner can approach the Assam Court tomorrow. Singvhi stated that the concerned Court is closed tomorrow. 

Singhvi raised an apprehension that the Court's statement in the stay order that Khera got the relief based on a fabricated document will prejudice the Assam Court. Justice Maheshwari replied that it was clarified in the April 15 order itself that the observations would not cause any adverse inference.

Singhvi prayed for an elaboration of the Court's clarification. The Court accordingly clarified that the observations should not influence the consideration of the matter by the concerned Court.

On April 15, the top Court had stayed the High Court's transit anticipatory bail order in favor of Khera, taking note of a jurisdictional issue and commenting that it was "very surprised". It also issued notice on the State's plea against the High Court order, while adding that if Khera applies for anticipatory bail in the Court having jurisdiction in Assam, then the interim order passed by the Supreme Court will not have any adverse effect on the consideration of such an application.

Background

On April 10, Justice K Sujana of the Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to Khera for one week, subject to conditions, including that he will approach the Gauhati High Court to seek appropriate relief.

The High Court rejected the State's argument on maintainability of bail petition and stated that, considering Article 21 of the Constitution, the High Court can grant a limited transit anticipatory bail, even outside its jurisdiction, to enable the accused to approach the competent Court.

"The contention of the learned Advocate General that the petitioner can directly approach the Courts in Assam cannot be a ground to deny limited protection, particularly when there exist a reasonable apprehension of arrest. The concept of transit anticipatory bail is precisely evolved to address such situations where immediate protection is required to enable the accused to avail appropriate remedies before the competent jurisdictional court," the High Court noted.

Aggrieved, the Assam Government challenged the bail order on the grounds that the anticipatory bail petition was filed in Hyderabad, whereas Khera has not shown any reason as to why he cannot come to Assam and file for anticipatory bail there.

The FIR has been registered under Sections 175 (false statement in connection with an election), 35, 36, 318 (Cheating), 338 (forgery of valuable will, security etc.), 337 (Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.), 340 (Forged document or electronic record and using it as genuine), 352 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 356 (Defamation) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, at Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station.

On April 7, Assam police reached Hyderabad, Telangana, looking for Khera. As per reports, Assam Police also visited Khera's residence in Delhi and conducted a search.

Case Details: THE STATE OF ASSAM v. PAWAN KHERA | Diary No. - 22236/2026