“Allegations Appear Politically Motivated, Influenced By Political Rivalry”: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Pawan Khera
|The Court cautioned against the use of criminal processes to settle political scores, noting that custodial interrogation is not a necessity when allegations rooted in documentary evidence.
The Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera, observing that the purported allegations of forgery, appeared to be politically motivated and influenced by political rivalry, not warranting custodial interrogation.
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. The Bench in the order, which it had reserved yesterday for pronouncement, observed that the threshold for depriving an individual of their liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India must be higher.
Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar referring to Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab 1980) 2 SCC 565 observed, “…the criminal process must be applied with objectivity and circumspection so as to ensure that individual liberty is not imperiled by proceedings that may be coloured by political rivalry…”.
“…We are further of the opinion that the allegations and counter-allegations, as apparent 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, and the veracity of the allegations can be tested at trial. The right to personal liberty is a cherished fundamental right, and any deprivation thereof must be justified on a higher threshold, particularly where the surrounding circumstances may indicate the presence of political overtones”, the Bench further observed.
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Khera while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State of Assam.
Following his statements, made during a press conference, an FIR was registered by the Guwahati Crime Branch under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including Section 337 and 338, alleging that the documents were forged and fabricated to defame the complainant.
A Magistrate initially refused to issue a non-bailable warrant against the Appellant, noting the grounds were based on conjectures. After obtaining transit bail from the Telangana High Court, which was subsequently stayed by the Apex Court, the Appellant was directed to approach the Gauhati High Court. The Gauhati High Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea on April 24, 2026, leading to the present appeal.
The Supreme Court found the High Court’s approach erroneous, particularly regarding the shifting of the burden of proof onto the accused at the bail stage.
The Court emphasised the following ratio:
Balancing Interests: A balance must be struck between fair investigation and individual liberty, applying objectivity to ensure the process isn't swayed by political rivalry.
Custodial Necessity: Custodial interrogation is generally unnecessary when the case hinges on documentary evidence already recovered or displayed publicly.
Political Context: Statements made during election campaigns and counter-threats issued by the complainant's husband (the Chief Minister) suggested the proceedings were "politically motivated".
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and directed that Khera be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, subject to reasonable conditions imposed by the Investigating Officer. Khera, is required to cooperate with the investigation, refrain from tampering with evidence, and seek court permission before leaving the country.
Cause Title: Pawan Khera v. State of Assam (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 437)
Appearances:
Appellant: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate.
Respondent: Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General.