Guwahati, April 30: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday reserved its judgment on a plea filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered by Assam Police based on a complaint lodged by Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul Chandurkar heard detailed arguments from both sides after the Gauhati High Court rejected Khera’s anticipatory bail application. The case originates from allegations made by Khera claiming that Sharma possessed multiple foreign passports and had financial interests abroad.
Appearing for Khera, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that custodial interrogation was unwarranted and questioned the necessity of arrest. He contended that the matter primarily related to allegations of defamation and reputational harm, asserting that such offences did not justify custodial measures. Singhvi further described the case as “unprecedented” and raised concerns over public remarks allegedly made by Himanta Biswa Sarma, which, he argued, had heightened apprehensions of arrest.
The defence maintained that Khera was not a flight risk and had expressed willingness to cooperate with investigators. It also challenged the inclusion of certain legal provisions, including Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, arguing that it was not part of the original complaint or FIR. Singhvi additionally criticised observations made by the High Court, suggesting they pre-judged aspects of the case.
Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State of Assam, argued that the documents cited by Khera were “fake and forged” and that no such passports had been issued by any competent authority. He submitted that custodial interrogation was essential to determine the origin of the documents, identify those involved, and examine whether any foreign links existed. The State further contended that the matter extended beyond defamation and alleged that Khera had been absconding since the FIR was registered.
According to the prosecution, custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the full scope of the alleged offences, which include provisions related to false statements in connection with elections, cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, intentional insult and defamation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR was registered at the Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station.
Earlier, Khera had secured transit anticipatory bail from the Telangana High Court on April 10. However, the Supreme Court subsequently stayed that protection on April 15 and directed him to approach the appropriate court in Assam. The Gauhati High Court later rejected his plea, observing that the allegations warranted custodial interrogation and were not limited to defamation.
The Supreme Court’s reserved verdict is now awaited.
