In a significant legal victory for Congress leader Pawan Khera, the Supreme Court of India has granted him anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case registered by the Assam Police. The case stems from allegations made by Khera regarding the personal documentation and assets of Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar delivered the verdict, which was uploaded to the court’s website on Friday. The bench observed that the earlier order by the Gauhati High Court, which had rejected Khera’s bail plea on April 24, was “erroneous” and failed to correctly appreciate the material on record.
The legal battle began following a press conference on April 5, where Pawan Khera alleged that Riniki Bhuyan Sarma held three different passports and possessed undeclared property in the United States. Khera claimed these details were omitted from her election affidavit for the April 9 Assembly polls.
Following these claims, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma filed a First Information Report (FIR) with the Crime Branch in Guwahati, alleging defamation, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The Assam Police subsequently attempted to arrest Khera at his Delhi residence on April 7, though he was not present. After seeking temporary relief from the Telangana High Court and being directed by the Supreme Court to approach the local jurisdiction, the Gauhati High Court eventually denied him protection from arrest, leading to this final appeal.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Khera, argued that the invocation of forgery and public mischief charges was an exaggeration intended for “political vendetta.” Singhvi maintained that Khera is not a flight risk and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, suggesting the charges at most amounted to defamation.
“The issue is why is it necessary to humiliate by a custodial arrest,” Singhvi argued, questioning the necessity of a non-bailable warrant against a public figure who is not absconding.
Conversely, the Assam Police contended that Khera had utilized forged documents to make false claims. They argued that his custody was essential to uncover potential “foreign elements” or accomplices involved in the alleged conspiracy.
The Supreme Court bench highlighted that the Gauhati High Court had incorrectly shifted the “burden on the accused” at the bail stage. The Justices noted that observations regarding Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) were made based solely on the Advocate General’s statements without formal allegations in the FIR.
“In our view, the observations as made by the High Court in the order impugned is not based on correct appreciation of all the material… and appears to be erroneous,” the bench stated.
While emphasizing that personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be jeopardized lightly, the court also stressed that the investigation must proceed with “integrity and in full swing.”
The apex court directed that in the event of arrest in Crime Branch Police Station Case No. 04/2026, Khera must be released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions set by the Investigating Officer. The court imposed the following mandates on Khera:
- He must cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.
- He must appear at the police station whenever required.
- He is prohibited from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
- He must not leave India without the prior permission of the competent court.
The bench clarified that these observations are limited to the grant of bail and should not influence the merits of the criminal trial.
