Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Congress Leader Pawan Khera's Plea For Anticipatory Bail In Assam Police FIR

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved judgment on the petition filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR registered by Assam Police on the complaint by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, over Khera's allegation that she held multiple passports.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul Chandurkar heard the Congress leader Pawan Khera's plea against the Gauhati HC's rejection of his anticipatory bail plea.

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for Khera, started by saying that it was "an unprecedented case", as there were statements by the "boss of the boss of the boss of the Prosecutor", referring to certain public statements made by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.

Singhvi said that he cannot read in open court some of the statements of Sarma, as there are "unprintable" words. He said that Sarma has threatened that Khera will spend the rest of his life in an Assam jail. "Dr.Ambedkar would turn in his grave if he had imagined that a Constitutional office holder will speak like a Constitutional cowboy or a Constitutional Rambo," Singhvi submitted.

Singhvi stated that the core of the case is allegations of defamation and reputational damage, and there was no necessity for arrest or custodial interrogation. "Let me assume I am convicted ultimately. But where is the necessity of arrest? What is there in the case which can be done without an arrest?" Singhvi said, stating that adequate measures can be adopted to ensure that Khera will not flee and will cooperate with the investigation.

"Why is it necessary to humiliate with a custodial interrogation?" he asked. Singhvi said that about 50-60 Assam policemen landed in Nizamuddin to arrest Khera, as if "he is a terrorist." According to him, most of the offences in the FIR are bailable.

Singhvi then questioned the High Court's order as it refers to Section 339 BNS( possession of forged documents), whereas this offence is not mentioned either in the complaint or the FIR. Also, S.339 is bailable, the senior counsel added. But Justice Maheshwari pointed out S.339 refers to various grades of offences, and some of them are punishable by life imprisonment, and some are punishable up to 7 years imprisonment.

Singhvi also took objection to the High Court terming the complainant (Rinki Bhuyan Sarma) an "innocent lady", contending that it was a matter to be determined in trial. The High Court pre-judged the issue, he argued.

Singhvi urged that personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 must be protected, highlighting that Khera was not a "hardened criminal", and was an active politician, and the case was essentially a political response to certain political allegations raised by the petitioner.

Describing the Chief Minister's comments as "venom spewing out", Singhvi said that the background renders the grant of relief necessary.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the State of Assam, opposed the plea, and took the bench through the complaint to show that offences are made out. The SG stated Khera had alleged that the CM's wife has passports of three other countries, and showed certain images of the purported passports in his press conference. However, the investigation has disclosed that the pictures shown were forged. The SG added that certain fake documents regarding a company registered in the USA were also shown. The SG said that custodial interrogation of Khera was necessary to ascertain who the accomplices were, and to understand if there were foreign hands involved in fabricating the passports in the name of the complainant.  He added that the complete information gathered by the police cannot be revealed at this juncture.

The SG said that since the registration of FIR, Khera has been "absconding" and that it was "not a simple defamation case". "As an investigating agency, I would like to know how you forged the documents? What was your intent? If you did not forge, who gave it to you? Who were the foreign elements who were interested in interfering with our elections? Cusotdial interrogation is qualitatively different from other forms of interrogation," SG said.

IBackground

The present proceedings arise out of an FIR lodged by Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, against Congress leader Pawan Khera at the Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station. The allegations relate to Khera's public claims that Sharma held multiple foreign passports and had financial interests abroad.

The FIR invokes multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Sections 175 (false statement in connection with an election), 318 (cheating), 338 (forgery of valuable security or will), 337 (forgery of public record), 340 (using forged document as genuine), 352 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace) and 356 (defamation).

Khera initially approached the Telangana High Court, which on April 10 granted him one week's transit anticipatory bail to enable him to seek regular relief before the competent court in Assam.

On April 15, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the transit anticipatory bail. At the same time, it clarified that if Khera were to apply for anticipatory bail before the court having jurisdiction in Assam, such application should be considered independently. The Supreme Court subsequently declined Khera's plea to vacate the stay as well as his request to extend the protection to facilitate his approach to the Assam court.

Following this, Khera moved the Gauhati High Court seeking anticipatory bail. The High Court rejected the plea, holding that the case was not one of defamation simpliciter and that custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain the source of the documents relied upon by Khera.

The High Court also observed that Khera had failed to substantiate his allegations regarding multiple passports and foreign investments and remarked that he had drawn a private individual into a political controversy.

Case no. - SLP(Crl) No. 7786/2026

Case Title - Pawan Khera v. State of Assam