In a significant order, the Gauhati High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera, observing that the case involves more than mere political statements and warrants custodial interrogation.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a press conference held in Guwahati on April 5, 2026, where Khera allegedly made claims concerning Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, wife of the Assam Chief Minister. He presented certain documents to support allegations that she held foreign passports and had made substantial overseas investments.
Following this, an FIR was lodged by Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, asserting that the claims were false and defamatory. The police subsequently registered a case under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Khera approached the High Court seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi, appearing for Khera, argued that the statements made during the press conference were part of political discourse ahead of elections. He contended that, at most, the issue could amount to defamation.
“The press conference was political rhetoric aimed at an opposing party,” the defence submitted, suggesting that arrest would amount to unnecessary harassment.
On the other hand, the State, represented by the Advocate General of Assam, argued that the documents relied upon by Khera had already been found to be false during investigation. It was further submitted that the case involved offences beyond defamation, including use of fabricated material.
Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia carefully examined the nature of the allegations and the material placed before the court.
The court noted that Khera had relied on documents to substantiate his claims but had not disputed the police assertion that those documents were false.
“The claim of the State that the documents are false appears to have force,” the bench observed.
Importantly, the court drew a distinction between political criticism and dragging a private individual into controversy.
The bench remarked that while political leaders may engage in rhetoric against opponents, “an innocent lady” who is not in politics had been brought into the allegations without substantiated proof.
The court further held that the case could not be treated as “defamation simpliciter” and that there existed a prima facie case under Section 339 of the BNS, 2023.
Addressing the question of arrest, the court found that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the source of the alleged documents.
“The investigation requires finding out who collected those documents and from where,” the court noted, emphasizing that such details could not be ascertained without proper interrogation.
The bench also rejected the argument that the case was politically motivated, stating that there was no material to suggest that the accusations were intended merely to harass the applicant.
Concluding that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case and that investigation required custody, the court held that Khera was not entitled to anticipatory bail.
“The petitioner does not deserve to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail,” the court ruled, rejecting the application.
Case Details
Case Title: Pawan Khera v. State of Assam
Case Number: AB/804/2026
Judge: Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia
Decision Date: 24 April 2026
