Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Pawan Khera's Anticipatory Bail in Passport Row

NEW DELHI — April 30, 2026
The Supreme Court of India has reserved its judgment on the anticipatory bail petition filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera. The plea challenges the Gauhati High Court's decision to deny him pre-arrest bail in connection with a criminal case registered by the Assam Police.

The case stems from a press conference where Khera alleged that the wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma holds multiple foreign passports and undisclosed overseas assets.

Petitioner's Arguments
Representing Khera, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued before a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar that the apprehension of arrest is credible and politically motivated.
Singhvi highlighted the following points:

Lack of Necessity for Custody: He contended that there is no risk of the petitioner fleeing or tampering with evidence, as the core issues revolve around reputational damage and statements made during a public press conference.

Political Vendetta: Singhvi pointed to public statements made by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, which he argued demonstrated malice and personal vendetta, suggesting the arrest is aimed at humiliating the Congress leader.

Flaws in the High Court Order: Singhvi criticized the High Court for invoking Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for the possession of forged documents. He pointed out that this is a bailable offense and was not part of the original First Information Report (FIR).

Scope of Anticipatory Bail: He emphasized that anticipatory bail acts as a fundamental safeguard for personal liberty and should not be treated as a mere privilege.

Respondent's Arguments
Appearing for the Assam Police, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta strongly opposed the plea, asserting that the investigation requires custodial interrogation.

Mehta presented the following counter-arguments:

Fabricated Documents: Mehta submitted that the documents Khera displayed at the press conference, including purported copies of passports, were fake, doctored, and fabricated.
Requirement for Custodial Interrogation: The State argued that Khera's questioning is essential to uncover who forged the documents, identify accomplices, and investigate whether foreign elements are attempting to interfere with local elections.

Non-Bailable Offenses: Mehta highlighted that the FIR includes Section 338 of the BNS, which concerns the forgery of a valuable security like a passport and is a non-bailable offense.

Procedural Background

• The case has seen multiple legal developments across different jurisdictions since the FIR was filed:
• The Assam Police visited Khera's residence in Delhi on April 7 but could not locate him.
• Khera subsequently secured a one-week transit anticipatory bail from the Telangana High Court on April 10.
• On April 15, the Supreme Court stayed the Telangana High Court's order, citing issues of territorial jurisdiction, and directed Khera to approach the appropriate court in Assam.
• On April 24, the Gauhati High Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea, observing that the investigation required custodial interrogation to trace the origin of the documents.

The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its final order in the case soon.

Discription: Supreme Court of India recently heard the anticipatory bail plea of Congress leader Pawan Khera regarding an Assam Police FIR. The case involves allegations of defamation, forgery, and public mischief from a press conference where Khera claimed the Assam Chief Minister's wife possessed multiple foreign passports. Khera's counsel argued the case is politically motivated, citing threats and an unnecessary show of force. Conversely, the State contended that Khera displayed fabricated documents, making custodial interrogation essential to identify accomplices and potential foreign interference in local elections. The High Court previously denied bail, noting Khera's evasion and the need to trace the forged documents' origin. The Supreme Court has now reserved its verdict, establishing a critical balance between personal liberty and powers.