The Supreme Court of India on Thursday reserved its verdict on the anticipatory bail plea filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera. The case stems from a criminal investigation initiated by the Assam Police following Khera’s public allegations against Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
As reported by Bar and Bench, a bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar concluded the hearing after listening to extensive arguments from both Khera’s counsel and the representatives of the Assam Police.
The controversy ignited during a press conference where Khera alleged that Riniki Bhuyan Sarma holds multiple foreign passports and undisclosed assets in the United States and UAE. Khera’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that the case is a textbook example of political malice. Singhvi contended that Khera’s statements, even if disputed, would at most constitute defamation, a bailable offense, rather than the more severe charges of forgery and public mischief invoked by the state.
Singhvi launched a scathing critique of the political climate surrounding the case, accusing Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of behaving like a "constitutional Rambo" and a "constitutional cowboy." He cited interviews where the Chief Minister allegedly threatened that Khera would spend the rest of his life in an Assam jail. Singhvi further questioned the necessity of a custodial arrest, noting that dozens of police officers were sent to Khera’s Delhi residence as if they were pursuing a terrorist, despite Khera being neither a flight risk nor a threat to the investigation.
The Congress leader approached the apex court after the Gauhati High Court rejected his bail plea on April 24. The High Court had previously observed that custodial interrogation was essential to identify the sources who provided Khera with the allegedly fabricated documents. The lower court also noted that while political rhetoric against a Chief Minister might be expected, dragging a private citizen, the Chief Minister's wife, into the fray crossed a legal line.
Representing the Assam Police, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta maintained that the gravity of the offense necessitated custody. Mehta argued that the passports displayed by Khera were "blatantly false, doctored, and fabricated." He emphasized that a passport is considered a "valuable security" under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and that the investigation must determine who forged official government seals and whether foreign elements were attempting to interfere with local elections.
The Solicitor General also rebutted the claim that the offenses were minor, stating that Section 338 of the BNS is non-bailable. He told the court that Khera had been "absconding" while releasing videos online, and that the police need to uncover the network of accomplices who helped create the forged documents used during the election campaign.
In his rebuttal, Singhvi maintained that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any qualitative necessity for arrest other than the intent to humiliate his client. He pointed out that the High Court’s order mentioned Section 339 of the BNS, which relates to the possession of forged documents and is bailable, even though the police had not originally invoked it in their FIR.
With the arguments concluded, the Supreme Court will now deliberate on whether to grant the Congress leader protection from arrest or allow the Assam Police to proceed with custodial interrogation.