The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with an FIR registered by Assam Police.
The case stems from a complaint filed by Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, after Khera used forged documents to claim that she held multiple passports and had foreign financial interests. Khera had approached the Supreme Court after Gauhati HC rejected his anticipatory bail plea in 24th April.
A bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and A.S. Chandurkar observed that the allegations and counter-allegations appeared to be “politically motivated” and did not warrant custodial interrogation. The Court noted that the veracity of the claims could be tested during trial. The Supreme Court's verdict goes contrary to the ruling of Gauhati High Court, which had said that custodial interrogation is required to know who prepared and gave the forged documents to the Congress leader.
“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 stated. It emphasised striking a balance between the State’s interest in investigation and an individual’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court criticised the Gauhati High Court’s earlier dismissal of Khera’s anticipatory bail plea. It found that the High Court had erroneously shifted the burden onto the accused and made observations on an offence under Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) not mentioned in the FIR. The apex court also took note of "unparliamentary remarks" allegedly made by the Assam Chief Minister threatening Khera’s arrest.
The Court directed that Khera be released on anticipatory bail if arrested. However, the apex court has imposed conditions for the anticipatory bail, saying he must fully cooperate with the investigation, appear before the investigating officer as required, not leave the country without court permission, and refrain from tampering with evidence.
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented Khera, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State of Assam.
The FIR, lodged at Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station, invokes several BNS sections: 175 (false statement in connection with an election), 318 (cheating), 338 (forgery of valuable security), 337 (forgery of public record), 340 (using forged document as genuine), 352 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), and 356 (defamation).
Khera’s claims were made ahead of assembly elections in Assam. He had initially received transit anticipatory bail from the Telangana High Court, but the Supreme Court had stayed that order over technical grounds and directed him to approach the appropriate court in Assam. The Gauhati High Court rejected his plea, citing the need for custodial interrogation to trace the source of documents Khera had referenced.
Himanta Biswa Sarma and Riniki Bhuyan Sharma had denied all the allegations and pointed out multiple discrepancies in the documents presented by Khera, showing that they were fake. Within days, Assam BJP located the original documents available online, which were used by Congress to produce the forged documents by inserting the name and other details of the CM's wife. Two American companies, allegedly in the name of the CM's family, were also found to be registered online, one a day before the press conference and the other after the press conference. Assam BJP had created a similar company in the name of Gaurav Gogoi and his wife to show how easily it can be done.