Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Pawan Khera; Labels Case ‘Politically Motivated’

New Delhi (IANS): The Supreme Court allowed the anticipatory bail plea of Congress leader Pawan Khera on Friday. The ruling addresses an FIR the Assam Police lodged regarding Khera’s alleged remarks against Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.

The Ruling on Personal Liberty

A Bench consisting of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar set aside a previous Gauhati High Court decision that had denied Khera protection from arrest.

• Article 21 Protection: The Bench observed that authorities cannot lightly jeopardize individual liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Political Rivalry: The court held that the allegations appear, prima facie, to be politically motivated and influenced by rivalry rather than disclosing a need for custodial interrogation.
• Judicial Balance: Justice Maheshwari emphasized that courts must strike a careful balance between the State’s interest in investigation and an individual’s fundamental right to personal liberty.

Bail Conditions and Legal Errors

The top court directed the police to release Khera on bail in the event of an arrest, provided he follows specific conditions:

• Cooperation: Khera must cooperate with the investigation and appear before the police when required.
• Evidence Integrity: He must refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
• Travel Restrictions: He cannot leave India without prior permission from the competent court.

The Supreme Court further noted that the Gauhati High Court erred by incorrectly shifting the burden of proof onto the accused and relying on Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), even though the FIR did not invoke that provision.

Arguments from the Prosecution and Defense Lawyers

During the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the case centered on reputational harm and political rhetoric during an election campaign, which does not justify arrest. Conversely, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Assam government, argued that custodial interrogation was essential to investigate the source of allegedly forged passports and fabricated documents displayed by Khera.

The Bench ultimately noted several public statements made by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma against Khera as part of the broader political context surrounding the prosecution.