In Pawan Khera vs. State of Assam (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atuk S. Chandukar passed a 22-page long order dated April 30, 2026, wherein, it referred to Court's decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. vs. State of Punjab 1980) 2 SCC 565 granted anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera, observing that the purported allegations of forgery, appeared to be politically motivated and influenced by political rivalry, not warranting custodial interrogation. The case originated from a Guwahati press conference where Pawan Khera alleged that Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of the Assam Chief Minister, held multiple international passports and had invested ₹50,000 crores in a U.S.-based company.
The Court concluded:"....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. 27) 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.
28) 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.
In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. vs. State of Punjab 1980) 2 SCC 565, the Court observed, “…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…”
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed order dated April 24, 2026 passed by the Gauhati High Court of Assam in Anticipatory Bail No. 804/2026, whereby, the Gauhati High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail. The appellant 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.
In the FIR, it was alleged that the appellant, who was an office bearer of a national political party, addressed two press conferences on April 5, 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 also 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 had a company registered at Wyoming, USA with an investment of more than Rs. 50,000/-crores. She also owned and possesses certain assets and properties in Dubai and these facts were not disclosed in the election affidavit filed by the husband of the complainant. 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 was sought. The press conferences allegedly was held on April 5, 2026 at about 6 p.m. in the evening and the FIR was registered at 12.49 a.m. in the intervening night of April 5, 2026 and April 6, 2026. After giving such statements the Appellant travelled to Delhi and later to Hyderabad.
On the next date, i.e., April 7, 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 had the authority to arrest the appellant under Section 35 of the BNSS. The application seeking issuance of the non-bailable warrant was rejected.
The appellant sought transit anticipatory bail before the Telangana High Court which was granted vide order dated April 10, 2026. Challenging the same, the State filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. before the Supreme Court, wherein initially by order dated April 15, 2026, the operation of the order of the Telangana High Court was stayed. The appellant sought vacation of the stay and the SLP (Crl.) as well as the I.A. were disposed of by order dated April 17, 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 April 10, 2026 or by the Supreme Court while staying the said order. On filing the application seeking anticipatory bail before the Gauhati High Court, it was rejected by impugned order dated April 24, 2026, which gave rise to the appeal.
Supreme Court's order reads:"....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."
No comments:
Post a Comment