- By Nidhi Giri
- Thu, 30 Apr 2026 02:51 PM (IST)
- Source:JND
The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on a plea filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR filed by the Assam Police. The FIR was filed based on a complaint by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma. The complaint accused Kheda of claiming that Riniki Bhuyan Sarma possessed multiple passports.
A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul Chandurkar heard the plea challenging the dismissal of his anticipatory bail plea by the Guwahati High Court. Kheda was represented by senior advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
Top Court Told That CM's Statements Cannot Be Read
Singhvi said he could not read out some of Sarma's statements in open court as they contained words that were unprintable. He said Sarma had threatened that Kheda would spend the rest of his life in an Assam jail.
Singhvi argued, "If Dr Ambedkar had imagined that a person holding a constitutional position would say such things, he would have turned in his grave." Singhvi further stated that "the core issue of this case is allegations of defamation and damage to reputation, and there was no need for arrest or custodial interrogation.
Singhvi further said, "Let's assume I am ultimately found guilty. But why is there a need for an arrest? What is there in this case that can't be done without an arrest?" He said that adequate measures could be taken to ensure that Kheda does not flee and fully cooperates with the investigation.
Most Offences In FIR Are Bailable
He asked, "Why is it necessary to humiliate someone by detaining and interrogating them?" As per an NDTV report, Singhvi said that about 50-60 Assam Police personnel had reached Nizamuddin to arrest Kheda. According to him, most of the offences listed in the FIR are bailable.
Singhvi then questioned the High Court order as it mentioned Section 339 (possession of forged document) of the IPC, whereas this offence is neither mentioned in the complaint nor in the FIR.
Singhvi also argued that Section 339 is a bailable offense. However, Justice Maheshwari pointed out that Section 339 specifies different levels of offenses, some punishable by life imprisonment and others punishable by up to seven years' imprisonment.
Charges Must Be Proved In Trial
Singhvi also objected to the High Court's characterisation of the complainant (Rinki Bhuyan Sarma) as an "innocent woman"; he argued that the matter should be decided at trial. He argued that the High Court had already formed an opinion on the issue. Singhvi stressed that personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 must be protected.
He highlighted that Kheda is not a "chronic criminal" but an active politician, and that the case is essentially a political response to certain political allegations made by the petitioner. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta opposed the petition on behalf of the State of Assam.
He briefed the bench on every aspect of the complaint to demonstrate that a crime was made out. The SG noted that Kheda had alleged that the Chief Minister's wife held passports from three other countries, and had even shown photographs of the alleged passports at his press conference. However, an investigation revealed that the photographs were fake.
Solicitor General Alleges Wrongful Interference In Elections
The SG further stated that some fake documents related to a company registered in the US were also shown. The SG stated that Kheda's custodial interrogation was necessary to identify his accomplices and to understand whether any foreign power was involved in obtaining a passport in the complainant's name.
He also said that the entire information gathered by the police cannot be made public at this juncture. The SG said that "Khera has been absconding since the FIR was filed, and this is not a simple defamation case." The SG said, "As an investigating agency, I would like to know how you created these fake documents? What was your intention? If you didn't fake them, who gave them to you? Who were the foreign actors interested in interfering in our elections? Custodial interrogation is qualitatively different from other forms of interrogation."
What Is The Passport Row?
The Congress leader had, on April 5, in a press conference alleged that Assam CM's wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, has multiple passports and foreign property, which were not declared in the chief minister's election affidavit for the April 9 Assembly polls in that state. The Sarmas had rejected the allegations as false and fabricated. The case against Khera was registered at the Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station under several sections of the BNS sections, including 175 (false statement in connection with an election), 35 (Right of private defence of the body and of property) and 318 (cheating).