Supreme Court Reserves Order On Pawan Khera’s Anticipatory Bail Plea In Assam FIR
Supreme Court hears Pawan Khera’s anticipatory bail plea in FIR linked to complaint involving Assam CM’s wife
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on a plea filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera challenging the refusal of anticipatory bail by the Gauhati High Court in an FIR linked to a complaint by the wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
The bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar heard extensive arguments from both sides before reserving judgment.
Appearing for Khera, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the case did not justify custodial arrest, stressing that anticipatory bail exists precisely to protect against such situations. He contended that the allegations primarily relate to “reputational damage” arising out of statements made during a press conference and said: “Even if taken at face value, nothing here warrants arrest… The same objective can be achieved through interrogation and cooperation.”
Singhvi further submitted that there was a “credible apprehension of arrest,” pointing to public statements made by the Chief Minister, which he sharply criticised: “Dr Ambedkar would turn in his grave if he saw a constitutional office-holder speaking like a constitutional cowboy.” He argued that most offences invoked are bailable and those that are not still fail to meet the threshold for arrest, adding: “Arrest is never the first option; it must be the last resort.” Questioning the prosecution’s approach, Singhvi said the attempt to secure a non-bailable warrant was based on “presumptions and conjectures,” noting that even the magistrate had declined such relief.
Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the case involves serious allegations of fabrication of official documents, including passports. He submitted that investigation so far indicates that the documents circulated are “fake, doctored, and fabricated,” and raised concerns about a broader conspiracy: “The creation of official government seals on passports is a serious offence… the investigation must establish how these were created and who assisted.”
The prosecution also invoked non-bailable provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), arguing that a passport qualifies as a “valuable security,” thereby justifying custodial interrogation. Mehta emphasised the need to identify potential accomplices and the source of the alleged forged materials, suggesting the possibility of a wider network.
In rejoinder, Singhvi maintained that no direct criminal act is attributable to Khera and that the case, at best, concerns statements made in a public forum: “This is not a case requiring arrest unless the intention is to humiliate or harass.”
He argued that all investigative objectives can be achieved without custodial detention, reiterating that deprivation of liberty must meet the strict threshold under Article 21.
With arguments concluded, the Supreme Court has reserved its order.
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.
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. The Supreme Court had also clarified that neither its own observations nor those of the High Court should influence the consideration of Khera’s bail plea.
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
Hearing Date: April 30, 2026