Congress Leader Pawan Khera Made Allegations Against Assam CM's Wife To Gain Political Momentum: Supreme Court Notes In Bail Order

While granting anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in a case arising out of allegations that he displayed forged documents during press conferences targeting the wife of Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma, the Supreme Court has noted in its order that the statements have been made merely to gain some political momentum in favour of his party.

The top court's bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar noted the case of the prosecution was that upon investigation it found that the passports purported to be belonging to the complainant wife of the Assam CM were fake and had been displayed by Khera to defame the wife of the Chief Minister, intentionally causing harm to their reputation and for this purpose, the press conference was organized.

"At the same time, it is true that the documents which have been exhibited by the Appellant are in custody of prosecution and they have made some preliminary investigation thereon. However, it primarily appears that merely to gain some political momentum in favour of his party, this statement has been made by the Appellant. Albeit, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Chief Minister of the State, who is also husband of the complainant, has made certain unparliamentary remarks against the Appellant in various press statements," the bench has noted in its order.

Court has opined 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.

It has said 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.

Supreme Court has allowed Khera’s appeal against the Gauhati High Court order dated April 24, 2026, which had denied him anticipatory bail. The top court held that the High Court had erred in its appreciation of material and appeared to have shifted the burden onto the accused.

The Guwahati Police had registered the FIR invoking multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Sections 175, 35, 36, 318, 337, 338, 340, 352 and 356 (corresponding to the Indian Penal Code Sections 171G, 97, 98, 415, 466, 467, 471, 504 and 499, respectively) which broadly deal with allegations of false statements linked to elections, cheating, different forms of forgery and use of forged documents, intentional insult, and defamation.

The complaint was filed following two press conferences held by Khera on April 5, 2026, where he displayed documents purportedly showing that the complainant held multiple foreign passports and undisclosed overseas assets. The complainant denied the allegations, asserting that the documents were fabricated using forged seals and QR codes. The prosecution maintained that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the origin of the allegedly forged documents and identify others involved.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Khera, had argued that the case was based on documentary material already in possession of the authorities and did not warrant custodial interrogation. He contended that most of the invoked offences were bailable and that Khera had merely exhibited documents received from third parties during a political press briefing, without any criminal intent.

Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had argued that the allegations were serious, particularly given the timing of the statements during the Assam Assembly elections. He submitted that the documents had been found to be forged during preliminary investigation and that custodial interrogation was essential to uncover the source and larger conspiracy.

Notably, on April 24, the Gauhati High Court rejected Khera’s anticipatory bail plea, observing that the allegations went beyond political rhetoric. The Court noted that while criticism directed at a public figure could fall within political discourse, Khera had “dragged an innocent lady” into the controversy. The litigation has seen multiple rounds across courts.

Earlier, Khera had approached the Telangana High Court, which on April 10 granted him one week’s transit anticipatory bail to enable him to seek relief before a competent court in Assam. However, the Assam government challenged this relief before the Supreme Court, which on April 15 stayed the Telangana High Court’s order.

Subsequently, on April 17, the apex court declined to extend the transit protection and directed Khera to approach the jurisdictional court in Assam for anticipatory bail. Following this, Khera moved the Gauhati High Court, which ultimately rejected his application.

It is to be noted that the anticipatory bail granted to the Congress leader for a period of one week in connection with an FIR registered in Assam over his allegations regarding multiple passports and foreign assets linked to the wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma was recently challenged before the Supreme Court.

Case Title: Pawan Khera v. State of Assam

Bench: Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar

Order Date: April 30, 2026