The Supreme Court has stayed a Telangana High Court order that granted transit anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in a case involving an FIR registered by the Assam Police following allegations made by Khera against Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, wife of Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma, regarding the possession of multiple international passports.

The Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar ordered, "Considering all the aspects, issue notice. In the meantime, the operation of the impugned court shall remain a stayed. In case, if the petitioner applies, for an anticipatory period, the court having jurisdiction in Assam, and while deciding such application, the order passed by this court, in the matter of transit, may not have any adverse effects. It will be returnable in 3 weeks."


Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State of Assam.

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Assam, argued that the Telangana High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the place of occurrence is in Guwahati and the FOR was also registered in Guwahati. He contended that Khera’s petition failed to explain why the application was filed in Hyderabad rather than Assam. The SG further highlighted that the High Court overlooked the severity of the charges, noting that one of the alleged offences carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

The SG characterized the move as "forum-shopping," arguing that allowing individuals to seek bail in arbitrary locations across the country constitutes an abuse of the legal process. 

The brief facts of the case were that in the course of his political activities, Khera conducted a press meet on 04.04.2026, wherein he made certain allegations against Mr. Himanta Biswa Sharma, the Chief Minister of Assam. During the said press interaction, he stated that he possessed documents indicating that the complainant’s wife held three passports of different nations and further alleged involvement of Mr. Sharma in various illegal activities.

Aggrieved by the said statements, the complainant immediately addressed the media, refuted the allegations, and allegedly threatened to have the petitioner arrested within four hours. Subsequently, a complaint was lodged before the Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station, which was registered as Case No.04 of 2026 for offences punishable under Sections 175, 3(5), 3(6), 318, 336(4), 337, 338, 340, 341(1), 351(1), 352, 353, 356, and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Telangana High Court had originally granted Khera a one-week protection on April 10, citing Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court maintained that transit bail is a necessary tool to provide immediate protection, allowing an accused person enough time to approach the competent jurisdictional court—in this case, the Gauhati High Court. However, the State of Assam challenged this, asserting that Khera provided no valid reason for his inability to seek relief directly in Assam.

The High Court held, "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."

Accordingly, the matter will now be heard after three weeks.

Cause Title: State of Assam v. Pawan Khera [Diary No. 22236/2026]

Tags: