The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment on Congress leader Pawan Khera’s plea seeking anticipatory bail in a case filed by Assam Police on a complaint by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma.
A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul Chandurkar heard the matter after the Gauhati High Court rejected Khera’s anticipatory bail application. The case arises from Khera’s allegations that Riniki Bhuyan Sarma held multiple foreign passports and had financial interests abroad.
Appearing for Khera, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that there was no need for custodial interrogation and questioned the necessity of arrest. “Why is it necessary to humiliate with a custodial interrogation?” he asked, asserting that the case largely pertains to defamation and reputational damage.
Singhvi described the case as “unprecedented” and said the apprehension of arrest had been reinforced by public statements made by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. He told the court that some remarks were “unprintable” and claimed Sarma had threatened that Khera would spend the rest of his life in an Assam jail. He termed such comments as those of a “constitutional cowboy” and “constitutional Rambo,” adding that Dr B.R. Ambedkar would be shocked by such conduct from a constitutional office holder.
The senior counsel argued that Khera is a public figure, not a flight risk, and is willing to cooperate with the investigation. He emphasised that most offences invoked in the FIR are bailable and do not warrant arrest. Singhvi also told the court that 50–70 Assam police personnel reached Khera’s residence in Nizamuddin “as if he is a terrorist.”
He further objected to the Gauhati High Court’s reference to Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, stating that it was not mentioned in either the complaint or the FIR. Singhvi also criticised the High Court for describing the complainant as an “innocent lady,” arguing that such observations pre-judge issues meant for trial.
Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Assam, told the court that the documents shown by Khera were “fake and forged” and that no such passports were issued by any authority. He argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to identify who created the documents, who assisted Khera, and whether any foreign elements were involved.
The State contended that the case was not a simple defamation matter and alleged that Khera had been “absconding” since the FIR was registered. Mehta said custodial interrogation is qualitatively different and essential to uncover the full extent of the alleged offence.
The FIR, registered at the Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station, invokes multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including sections related to false statements in connection with elections, cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, intentional insult, and defamation.
Earlier, Khera approached the Telangana High Court, which granted him one week’s transit anticipatory bail on April 10. The Supreme Court later stayed this protection on April 15 and directed him to seek relief before the appropriate court in Assam. The Gauhati High Court subsequently denied his anticipatory bail plea, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary and that the case involved more than mere defamation.
– Ends
Published On:
Apr 30, 2026 12:31 IST
