In a very significant development, we see that the Supreme Court while underscoring the paramount importance of personal liberty in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Pawan Khera vs State of Assam in Criminal Appeal of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7786 of 2026) and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026 INSC 437 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction that was pronounced most recently on April 30, 2026 has deemed it fit to grant anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in a defamation and forgery case that was registered against him by the Assam Police. We need to note that the top court made it indubitably clear in this leading case that the allegations appeared to carry political overtones and underscored that personal liberty cannot be lightly curtailed in cases coloured by political rivalry. For the uninitiated, this leading case primarily stemmed from the serious charges that Pawan Khera levelled in a press conference that Assam Chief Minister’s wife Riniki Bhuyan Sharma holds multiple foreign passports and undisclosed assets abroad. FIR was lodged by Riniki against Congress leader Pawan Khera at the Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station.
We thus see that a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JK Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr Justice AS Chandurkar set aside the order of the Gauhati High Court which had denied relief to Pawan Khera. It merits noting that the top court said that the circumstances of the case indicated the presence of political rivalry warranting protection of Khera’s personal liberty. What also cannot escape our singular attention is that the top court while allowing the appeal of Pawan Khera for anticipatory bail mandated unequivocally that, “The right to personal liberty is a cherished fundamental right, and any deprivation thereof must be justified on a higher threshold, particularly where the surrounding circumstances may indicate the presence of political overtones.”
At the very outset, this robust, remarkable, rational and recent judgment authored by a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JK Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul S Chandurkar sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State, are ad idem that the matter may be heard on merits; therefore, it would be appropriate to finally dispose of this appeal.”
As we see, the Bench while laying bare the purpose of the appeal states in para 3 that, “Assailing order dated 24.04.2026 passed by the High Court of Assam, Gauhati (hereinafter, ‘Gauhati High Court’) in Anticipatory Bail No. 804/2026, whereby the Gauhati High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail, the present Appeal has been filed.”
As things stands, the Bench specifies in para 4 stating that, “The Appellant has been made an accused in connection with FIR No. 04/2026 dated 06.04.2026 registered by the Crime Branch Police Station, Guwahati under Sections 175, 3(5), 3(6), 318, 336(4), 337, 338, 340, 341(1), 351(1), 352, 353, 356, and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘BNS’).”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 5 mentioning that, “In the FIR, it is alleged that the Appellant, who is an office bearer of a national political party, addressed two press conferences on 05.04.2026, one at All India Congress Committee headquarters, New Delhi, and other at Hotel Lily, Gauhati. In the press conferences, the Appellant displayed certain documents on the stage with a large screen in the background, inter alia, stating that the complainant is the wife of the present Chief Minister of Assam and she holds three passports of (i) Egypt; (ii) United Arab Emirates; (iii) Antigua and Barbuda. He further stated that the documents shown on the screen exist as on date and have not expired. Showing some other documents in similar manner, it was also stated that the complainant has a company registered at Wyoming, USA with an investment of more than Rs. 50,000/- crores. She also owns and possesses certain assets and properties in Dubai and these facts have not been disclosed in the election affidavit filed by the husband of the complainant.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 6 that, “The complainant while lodging FIR denied the veracity of all these documents and stated that they were fabricated using forged seals and QR codes. On the basis of these averments appropriate criminal action for the offences as indicated hereinabove has been sought. The press conferences allegedly was held on 05.04.2026 at about 6 p.m. in the evening and the FIR was registered at 12.49 a.m. in the intervening night of 05.04.2026 and 06.04.2026. After giving such statements the Appellant travelled to Delhi and later to Hyderabad.”
Further, the Bench then lays bare in para 7 disclosing that, “On the next date, i.e., 07.04.2026, search and seizure proceedings were undertaken by the State through the police authorities at the residence of the Appellant in Delhi. Simultaneously, an application was also filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) seeking issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the Appellant which was rejected on the same date, inter alia observing that the grounds urged were based on presumptions and conjectures without being supported by any material on record. It was also observed that the offences as alleged were cognizable and non-bailable, therefore, the IO has the authority to arrest the Appellant under Section 35 of the BNSS.”
Furthermore, the Bench then further reveals in para 8 that, “In the interregnum, Appellant sought transit anticipatory bail before the Telangana High Court which was granted vide order dated 10.04.2026 in CRLP No. 5285 of 2026. Challenging the same, the State filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6818 of 2026 before this Court, wherein initially vide order dated 15.04.2026, the operation of the order of the Telangana High Court was stayed. Subsequently, the Appellant filed I.A. No. 116724 of 2026 seeking vacation of the stay and the SLP (Crl.) as well as the I.A. were disposed of vide order dated 17.04.2026 granting liberty to the Appellant to file an application seeking anticipatory bail before the competent Court in Assam. It was also observed that upon filing such application it be decided uninfluenced by the observations made by the Telangana High Court in the order dated 10.04.2026 or by this Court while staying the said order. On filing the application seeking anticipatory bail before the Gauhati High Court, it was rejected vide impugned order dated 24.04.2026, giving rise to this Appeal.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 20 that, “In the facts of this case, it cannot be disputed that in the State of Assam the assembly elections were in progress and the polling of votes was scheduled for 09.04.2026. The incident as alleged in the FIR occurred on 06.04.2026 which is prior to the conclusion of the election campaign. The Appellant being the representative of a national political party organized a press conference making some allegations against the complainant, who is the wife of the Chief Minister of the State. While doing so, three passports were displayed by the Appellant alleging that the complainant is having passports of three countries, out of which, two are of Muslim countries, however, complainant’s husband’s politics is based on hatred against the Muslim community in the State. In addition, it was further stated by the Appellant that in the election affidavit furnished by the husband of the complainant, the details of the companies and properties owned by his wife has not been disclosed.”
Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 23 that, “After perusal of the aforesaid statements, we are of the view that the allegations and counter allegations have been made by the Appellant as well as by the husband of the complainant. Learned Solicitor General has not defended any of such statements during the course of hearing, nor is the veracity of the same questioned.”
It is also worth noting that while taking a balanced stand, the Bench then notes in para 24 that, “At this stage, we are cognizant of the fact that personal liberty of an individual enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be put to jeopardy lightly. But at the same time, we are also of the view that for any offences as alleged in the FIR, the investigation should be completed with integrity and in full swing with co-operation of the Appellant.”
Most significantly and as a corollary, the Bench then encapsulates in para 25 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Having regard to the aforesaid considerations, we are of the opinion that while adjudicating an application for anticipatory bail, a careful balance must be struck between the State’s interest in ensuring a fair investigation and the individual’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in light of the principles enunciated in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra). In this context, the criminal process must be applied with objectivity and circumspection so as to ensure that individual liberty is not imperiled by proceedings that may be coloured by political rivalry. We are further of the opinion that the allegations and counter-allegations, as apparent in the present case, prima facie, appear to be politically motivated and seemingly influenced by such rivalry, rather than disclosing a situation warranting custodial interrogation, and the veracity of the allegations can be tested at trial. The right to personal liberty is a cherished fundamental right, and any deprivation thereof must be justified on a higher threshold, particularly where the surrounding circumstances may indicate the presence of political overtones.”
Resultantly, the Bench then directs and holds in para 26 that, “Considering all these aspects as discussed above and in conspectus of the present case, we are of the view that the tests as enumerated for grant of anticipatory bail in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra) finds favour with the Appellant.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 27 directing, holding and stipulating that, “In our view, the observations as made by the High Court in the order impugned is not based on correct appreciation of all the material which has been placed on record and appears to be erroneous, in particular shifting the burden on the accused. In addition, without alleging any offence under Section 339 of BNS and merely on the basis of statement made by the learned Advocate General, observations made regarding Section 339 of BNS do not appear to be correct. Accordingly, the present appeal stands allowed with following directions –
a) The Appellant is directed to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 04/2026 and on such reasonable terms and conditions which may be put by the Investigating Officer as deemed fit;
b) The Appellant is directed to co-operate in the investigation and to appear before the police station as and when required and intimated;
c) The Appellant shall not influence or tamper with any of the evidence during pendency of the investigation or trial;
d) Further, he shall not leave India without prior leave of the competent Court;
e) We further direct that if the trial Court deems it fit to impose some other conditions, it has the discretion to do the needful and put those conditions during trial.”
For clarity, the Bench then clarifies in para 28 directing and holding in para 28 that, “We further make it clear that the reference of the documents and the material made hereinabove is only for the purpose of consideration of grant of anticipatory bail and it has nothing to do with the merits of the criminal case. Therefore, the competent Court shall not be influenced by those observations and shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law.”
Finally, we see that the Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 29 that, “Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
In summation, we thus see that the Apex Court overturned Gauhati High Court’s decision to dismiss his anticipatory bail application. The top court after perusing the facts of the case and material before it deemed it fit to grant anticipatory bail subject to some conditions as mentioned herein aforesaid so that the right to personal liberty which is a fundamental right is not put to jeopardy. It was also made abundantly clear in this leading case by the Apex Court that personal liberty cannot be lightly curtailed in cases coloured by political rivalry! Absolutely right!
Author Bio
