The Supreme Court of India refused to extend the transit anticipatory bail of Congress leader Pawan Khera, directing him instead to approach the Gauhati High Court immediately for legal recourse. Khera filed an application seeking transit bail till Tuesday.

On April 15, the Court 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, "Matter listed today on mentioning being made by Ld Senior Counsels...The Court dispose of the order with an observation that the Respondent to approach the High Court immediately...we further make it clear that the Court deciding the Application shall not be influenced adversely from our order staying the transit bail. Meaning thereby the Court is to decide the application for bail on its own merit. In view of the above, the Respondent to apply immediately before the Court and the Court concerned shall immediately take up the matter. In case, the Court is not functioning request may be made which can be considered in accordance with law..."



Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State of Assam, while Senior Advocate Abhishek Manusinghvi appeared for Khera.

The Bench disposed of the application following a heated exchange regarding the authenticity of documents—specifically an Aadhaar card—filed in the Telangana High Court to establish residency.

While Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the discrepancies were a "small error" corrected during proceedings and that the heavy police presence at Khera's Nizamuddin residence necessitated protection of his fundamental rights, the bench remained firm, noting that the conduct of the petitioner regarding "forged and fabricated" materials was a serious concern that outweighed the request for a weekend extension.

Singhvi submitted, "It is a transit bail...it expires today...The Court opens on Monday...I am asking only for transit bail to be extended till Tuesday so I can approach on Monday...I have the corrigendum which says that the Court is not working..."

He read from the impugned order, "In the present case, the petitioner has specifically pleaded and placed material on record to demonstrate his presence in Hyderabad, including documents evidencing that his wife is a resident of Hyderabad and had contested in the Telangana Legislative Assembly elections. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner apprehends imminent arrest, especially in the light of search and seizure operations already conducted at his residence with the assistance of local police."

While the SG pointed out that new pleadings had been added to the application and noted the court's continued functioning, Singhvi raised concerns over the intensity of the police response. He argued that sending a large police force to Khera’s residence in Nizamuddin for an anticipatory bail matter touched upon fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Singhvi also addressed discrepancies regarding documentation mentioned in previous hearings. He claimed that the correct documents—specifically an affidavit related to his wife’s candidacy in Telangana—had been acknowledged in earlier records but were not being highlighted by the prosecution. The defence maintained that the transit bail extension was a necessary safeguard to ensure due process before the leader moves his application in Assam.

Justice Maheshwari said, "You are reading all these facts...then now you come to the bail petition before the Telangana High Court...you have not even mentioned the address..."

Singhvi said, "It was handed over...the papers were handed over during the hearing...the judge recognised it...This is a Technical trap for the unwary in a liberty matter. The act has a transit bail provision."

The Court pointed to specific documents (including an Aadhaar card) used to establish residency. The Bench explicitly stated, "There is fabrication of the document. We are aware... you are saying you have been fair... we are saying no."

The Court questioned why the details regarding his wife's residency and the corrected documents were not clearly mentioned in the initial transit bail petition filed in the High Court.

SG Mehta contested Singhvi’s narrative, accusing the defense of making incorrect statements regarding the sequence of events and the filings.

Singhvi asserted that the "correct document" (his wife’s election affidavit) was handed over in court and that the judge’s order reflects this correction. He described the focus on these documentation errors as a "technical trap for the unwary," arguing that such procedural issues should not overshadow the fundamental right to liberty and the provision for transit bail.

"I am only asking protection till Tuesday", Singhvi submitted.

"You go there...ask the Court...Court will grant you, if they are not taking up we are here", Justice Maheshwari said.

Singhvi said, "Today is Friday. I am filing on Monday...Your Lordships can’t protect me till Tuesday? Am I a hardened criminal? Your lordships were misled. I made a small error in filing the wrong document..."

The Court remarked, "How can you say it’s a small error?"

Singhvi said, "On the same day, same hearing, we filed the correct one...We filed the correct documents, apologising for the mix up in the pleading. This should have been told to your lordships. The error was pointed out in the court. It requires mens rea to do forgery. I am asking for protection till Tuesday on continuation of transit bail which will expire today. Just because I have displeased the chief minister, there’s no reason to send 100 people to Nizamuddin."

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."

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

Tags: