Supreme Court reserves verdict on Pawan Khera's anticipatory bail plea in case linked to Assam CM’s wife

The Supreme Court on Thursday, April 30 reserved its judgment on a plea filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered by Assam Police on the basis of a complaint lodged by Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul Chandurkar heard arguments from both sides after the Gauhati High Court rejected Khera’s anticipatory bail application. The case stems from allegations made by Khera claiming that Riniki Bhuyan Sarma possessed multiple foreign passports and held financial interests abroad.

Appearing for Khera, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that there was no justification for custodial interrogation and questioned the necessity of arrest in the matter.

“Why is it necessary to humiliate with a custodial interrogation?” Singhvi submitted before the court, contending that the case was primarily linked to allegations of defamation and reputational harm.

Singhvi described the matter as “unprecedented” and said apprehensions regarding arrest had intensified due to public remarks allegedly made by Himanta Biswa Sarma. According to Singhvi, some comments made publicly were “unprintable” and included statements suggesting Khera would spend the rest of his life in an Assam jail.

The senior counsel criticised such remarks, referring to them as conduct unbecoming of a constitutional office holder. He argued that Khera was a public figure, not a flight risk, and had expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Singhvi further stated that most offences invoked in the FIR were bailable and did not require arrest.

He also alleged that between 50 and 70 Assam Police personnel reached Khera’s residence in Delhi’s Nizamuddin area “as if he is a terrorist.”

During the hearing, Singhvi objected to the Gauhati High Court’s reference to Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, arguing that the provision was not mentioned either in the original complaint or in the FIR. He also criticised the High Court’s observation describing the complainant as an “innocent lady,” contending that such remarks amounted to pre-judging issues that should be determined during trial.

Opposing the anticipatory bail plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Assam, argued that the documents relied upon by Khera were “fake and forged” and that no such passports had been issued by any competent authority.

Mehta told the court that custodial interrogation was necessary to determine who allegedly prepared the documents, who assisted in the process, and whether any foreign elements were involved. The State argued that the matter extended beyond a simple defamation dispute and alleged that Khera had been “absconding” since registration of the FIR.

According to the State, custodial interrogation was qualitatively different from routine questioning and was necessary to uncover the broader scope of the alleged offences.

The FIR registered at the Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station invokes several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita related to false statements connected with elections, cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, intentional insult and defamation.

Earlier, Khera had approached the Telangana High Court, which granted him transit anticipatory bail for one week on April 10. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of India stayed the interim protection on April 15 and directed him to seek relief before the appropriate court in Assam.

The Gauhati High Court later rejected Khera’s anticipatory bail plea, observing that custodial interrogation was necessary and that the allegations in the case went beyond mere defamation.