The Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail to Congress president Pawan Kher in a case related to alleged forgery and defamation linked to an alleged false allegation against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma.
This comes after the Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a plea filed by Congress president Pawan Khera challenging the Gauhati High Court’s order denying him anticipatory bail in a defamation and forgery case related to allegations against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar heard submissions by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi for Khera and counter arguments by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Assam government before pronouncing the verdict.
Read also | Supreme Court stayed Telangana HC decision granting transit bail to Pawan Kher
Singhvi strongly criticized the statements attributed to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and alleged that he was behaving like a constitutional cowboy.
“Dr BR Ambedkar would be turning in his grave to imagine a constitutional functionary behaving like a ‘constitutional cowboy’ or a ‘constitutional Rambo’,” said a senior lawyer.
He argued that arresting Khera in custody was unnecessary in a defamation case when his client was not a flight risk. “Interrogation is available; there is no flight risk. The question is the necessity of the arrest. Why is it necessary to humiliate by arrest?” Singhvi claimed that the charges leveled against Pawan Kher are due, including Section 339 (forgery under BNS), which he claims was erroneously added later and is not even part of the original FIR.
He said arrest should be a last resort, especially for such crimes. He said the Gauhati High Court order states that he (Khera) does not deserve the “privilege” of anticipatory bail when freedom is a matter of right and not of privilege.
Singhvi added that this is a case of “venom” and “malice” spewing from the prosecution due to political pressure.” This is a case where venom and malice are spewed from the chief prosecutors’ chiefs’ chiefs!” he noted.
Read also | Rajya Sabha Elections: Congress names six candidates – details here
Singhvi further alleged that the police had unduly applied multiple charges, absconding, tampering with evidence and political influence. Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta, representing the Assam government, defended the need for an investigative hearing in the matter, pointing to the “seriousness of the allegations” leveled against Kher.
Mehta claimed that the case against Kher involved the alleged fabrication of official documents and that investigations had already revealed that these documents were forged.
He stressed the need to thoroughly investigate who created features such as passport seals, QR codes and other official markings.
Mehta said the investigation must reveal who forged the documents, whether Khera was dealing with accomplices and whether the alleged acts have wider implications, including possible foreign ties during the election period.
He further alleged that Khera has been evading investigation since the date of the crime, claiming to be “absconding” while continuing to post videos and remain out of reach of the authorities.
The FIR against Khera was filed by Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, wife of Assam Chief Minister (CM) Himanta Biswa Sharma, after Khera claimed in a press conference that she holds several foreign passports and undisclosed overseas assets.
Read also | Exit poll predictions in 2021 vs 2026
Earlier, the Supreme Court refused to extend the transit anticipatory bail granted to Kher by the Telangana High Court and directed him to approach the competent court in Assam. However, he clarified that his earlier statement will not affect the assessment of his cause of action by the competent court.
The Supreme Court, however, clarified its earlier order in which it stayed the one-week anticipatory bail granted to Khera by the Telangana High Court to the extent that it would not have any adverse effect on the jurisdictional court deciding Khera’s plea.
Subsequently, Khera approached the Gauhati High Court, where he was denied relief. He then moved to the Supreme Court where he challenged the High Court order. The Supreme Court heard the arguments of both sides and decided to decide.
