The Supreme Court on Friday granted anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in a case involving alleged forgery and defamation linked to remarks made against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma.
The relief comes after a sharp legal battle that saw the apex court step in following the Gauhati High Court’s refusal to grant Khera protection from arrest. The case has drawn attention not just for the allegations, but also for the political undertones and strong exchanges inside the courtroom. The court, while granting relief, also flagged concerns that the proceedings appeared to be influenced by political rivalry, stressing that individual liberty cannot be compromised lightly.
A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar had reserved its verdict on Thursday after hearing detailed arguments from both sides. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Khera, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Assam government.
While allowing the plea, the court set aside the Gauhati High Court’s order, observing that a balance must be maintained between the State’s interest in investigation and an individual’s right to personal liberty under Article 21. “While adjudicating an application for anticipatory bail, a careful balance must be struck between the State’s interest in ensuring a fair investigation and the individual’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21,” the bench said.
The court further said the criminal process must be applied with “objectivity and circumspection” and noted that the allegations and counter-allegations in the present case “prima facie appear to be politically motivated and seemingly influenced by such rivalry, rather than disclosing a situation warranting custodial interrogation.”
‘Why custodial arrest?’: Defence questions need for detention
Arguing for Khera, Singhvi questioned the need for custodial interrogation in what he described as a defamation case involving bailable offences. He told the court, “Interrogation is available; there is no flight risk. The question is the necessity of arrest. Why is it necessary to humiliate by custodial arrest?”
He also took strong exception to remarks attributed to the Assam Chief Minister, saying, “Dr BR Ambedkar would turn over in his grave if he had imagined a constitutional functionary behaving like a ‘constitutional cowboy’ or a ‘constitutional Rambo’.”
Singhvi further argued that the charges, including forgery under Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, were added later and did not form part of the original FIR. The Supreme Court also noted this aspect, observing that the Gauhati High Court had erred in relying on provisions that were not invoked in the FIR and had incorrectly shifted the burden onto the accused.
He insisted that liberty is a right and not a privilege, referring to the Gauhati High Court’s observation that Khera did not deserve anticipatory bail.
Calling the prosecution politically motivated, he said the case reflected “venom” and “malice” under pressure from those in power. He also contested claims that Khera was absconding or influencing the investigation.
Assam govt flags ‘seriousness’, seeks deeper probe
Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the allegations against Khera were serious and warranted custodial interrogation. He told the court that the case involved the fabrication of official documents, which investigators had already found to be forged.
Mehta emphasised the need to trace the origin of the documents, including elements such as passport seals and QR codes. He also raised the possibility of accomplices and wider implications, including potential foreign links during an election period.
The Assam government maintained that Khera had been evading investigation since the alleged offence, even while continuing public engagement through videos.
Case background: FIR, HC setback, and SC intervention
The FIR came after Riniki Bhuyan Sarma moved the police, alleging that Khera, during a press conference, had claimed she held multiple foreign passports and undisclosed assets abroad. She denied the allegations and claimed that the documents shown were fabricated using forged seals and QR codes.
The Supreme Court also took note of public remarks made by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma during the controversy, observing that these statements formed part of the broader political context surrounding the case.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had declined to extend the transit anticipatory bail granted to Khera by the Telangana High Court, asking him to approach the appropriate court in Assam. It had, however, clarified that its observations would not affect the lower court’s decision.
After the Gauhati High Court denied him relief, Khera moved the Supreme Court, challenging that order. The apex court, after hearing both sides, has now granted him anticipatory bail, directing that he be released in the event of arrest subject to conditions.
The court asked Khera to cooperate with the investigation, appear before authorities as required, refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and not leave the country without prior permission of the competent court.