Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Pawan Khera’s Plea Against Denial Of Anticipatory Bail

The Supreme Court reserved its judgment today on a plea filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera, challenging the Gauhati High Court's refusal to grant him pre-arrest bail.

The case originated from a Guwahati press conference where Khera alleged that Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of the Assam Chief Minister, held multiple international passports and had invested ₹50,000 crores in a U.S.-based company.

While the defence characterised the case as a matter of "political rhetoric" and "defamation simpliciter" fueled by state-sponsored "angst," the prosecution maintained that the case involved the serious criminal fabrication of valuable government securities and potential foreign interference in the democratic process.

The Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandrukar reserved the orders in the plea.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manusinghvi appeared for Pawan Khera, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and ASG SV Raju appeared for the State of Assam.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Khera, argued that the case represented an unprecedented situation where the prosecution’s own conduct justified a genuine apprehension of arrest. Singhvi took the Court through several public statements made by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, describing the language used by the constitutional office holder as that of a "constitutional cowboy." He asserted that such rhetoric would have deeply disturbed the Founding Father of the Constitution.

He said, "Please see the published articles on Assam Chronicle with the unprintable word right in the middle...Please see page nos.76, 77, 78 is this 'Peda' thing. He says, 'peda bana dunga'.Then he goes on saying 'Pelunga'...Dr. Ambedkar would turn over in his grave if he had imagined a constitutional holder of office behaving like a constitutional cowboy, a constitutional Rambo."

Singhvi further contended that the core of the allegations involved reputational damage, which did not legally necessitate a custodial arrest. He pointed out that since travel documents were easily monitored, there was no credible flight risk. The defense argued that the necessity for arrest appeared to stem from the state's political angst rather than a legitimate investigative requirement. Singhvi questioned why the state bypassed the Magistrate to seek a non-bailable warrant, suggesting that the primary goal was to humiliate Khera through a custodial arrest.

He further maintained that the various legal sections invoked by the Investigating Officer were "thrown in" to justify detention despite the lack of evidence regarding absconding or tampering. Singhvi concluded that if anticipatory bail were denied in such a context, the very purpose of the legal protection would be rendered meaningless.

Singhvi argued that the Gauhati High Court's order contained significant legal errors, particularly regarding the invocation of Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). He noted that while the High Court cited this section—which pertains to the possession of forged documents—as a ground for custodial interrogation, the offence is actually bailable and was not even included in the original FIR or the police complaint. He contended that the "necessity" for arrest was manufactured by political angst, and that any required investigation could be achieved through standard cooperation and interrogation without the need for a humiliating custodial arrest.

He further highlighted the disproportionate nature of the state's response, comparing the arrival of 50-70 policemen at his Delhi residence to a counter-terrorism operation. Singhvi maintained that the heart of the matter remained a reputational dispute which did not warrant the "extraordinary" measure of a non-bailable warrant. By bypassing the Magistrate and pushing for immediate custody, the state had, according to the defence, turned a bailable matter into an instrument of personal harassment.

Per contra, SG Tushar Mehta, while referring to the complaint, said that the address given by Khera included derogatory statements. He said, "The address includes visuals in the background with an explosive and announcement carrying derogatory and suggestice expression saying 'apki bar bunty and bubbly honey waley hai feraar."

Mehta informed the Supreme Court that the allegations regarding the citizenship of the Chief Minister’s wife were entirely false. He stated that the copies of the passports displayed by Pawan Khera were doctored and fabricated documents.

Mehta emphasized that under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a passport was considered a "valuable security," and the use of forged versions constituted a serious, non-bailable offense under Section 338. He argued that while political leaders often made various claims during elections, this case involved the deliberate creation of false government records to target a private individual who was not in politics.

He contended that the investigation had already revealed the documents to be forgeries, including alleged property records in the UAE. He argued that the investigating agency needed to determine how the documents were forged, who created the official government seals, and how photographs and QR codes were manipulated.

Mehta stressed that custodial interrogation was essential to identify accomplices and to uncover the source of these materials, as the process of pasting a person’s photograph onto an existing passport suggested a sophisticated level of fabrication that could involve other documents.

The Solicitor General suggested that the investigation needed to explore the potential involvement of foreign elements in creating these documents to influence the election. He concluded that the gravity of the forgery, combined with the petitioner's conduct, justified the High Court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail.

Background

The brief facts of the case were that Khera, who is an Office Bearer of the Indian National Congress, on 5th April, 2026, attended a Press Conference at Guwahati. In that Press Conference, by showing some documents, Khera claimed that Rinki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of the Chief Minister of Assam holds Passports of Egypt, United Arab Emirates and of Antigua & Barbuda. Shri Khera also claimed that Smti. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma floated a company at Wyoming in the United States of America and also invested more than ₹50,000 crores. In order to make those claims, Pawan Khera had shown different documents, which he claimed, that those documents were collected by his associates.

Aggrieved by the accusations, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma had immediately lodged an FIR before the police and past midnight, the police registered the case. In her FIR, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma has claimed that she is an Indian citizen and that she does not hold any passport of any other country nor has she floated the company in the United States of America.

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.

On April 15, the Supreme Court had stayed the 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.

Then, the Supreme Court, on April 17, had refused to extend the transit anticipatory bail of Khera, directing him instead to approach the Gauhati High Court immediately for legal recourse. Khera filed an application seeking transit bail till April 21. The Apex Court had 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.

After which, Khera moved to the Gauhati High Court vide an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, whereby he prayed for pre-arrest bail in respect of the alleged offences.

The Gauhati High Court had said that the accusations, which claimed Smti. Sarma held multiple international passports and invested ₹50,000 crores in a U.S. company, transcended mere "political rhetoric" and "defamation simpliciter." The Court emphasized that because the police have flagged the supporting documents as fabricated, custodial interrogation is essential to uncover the source of these materials and identify the associates involved in their collection.

Cause Title: Pawan Khera v. State of Assam [SLP(Crl) No. 7786/2026]