Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Congress Leader Pawan Khera

Supreme Court's Decision on Pawan Khera's Bail

Guwahati, May 1: The Supreme Court of India has approved anticipatory bail for Congress leader Pawan Khera, following an FIR lodged by Assam Police. This complaint was initiated by Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, who alleged that Khera possessed multiple passports.

A bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar had deliberated on Khera's appeal against the Gauhati High Court's previous denial of bail.

In its ruling delivered on Friday, the Supreme Court stated that the High Court's findings were based on an incorrect interpretation of the evidence presented and were fundamentally flawed, particularly in shifting the burden of proof onto the accused.

The court remarked that the allegations and counter-allegations seemed to be politically motivated, influenced by rivalry rather than indicating a need for custodial interrogation. It emphasized that the truth of these claims could be established during the trial.

Reiterating the significance of personal rights, the bench noted, “The right to personal liberty is a fundamental right, and any infringement must meet a higher standard, especially when political implications are evident.”

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's reference to Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), pointing out that the FIR did not include such claims. The court asserted that the High Court should not have made such references based solely on the Advocate General's statements.

In granting relief, the court ordered that Khera be released on anticipatory bail if arrested. He is required to cooperate with the investigation, report to the investigating officer as needed, and seek court approval before leaving India. Standard conditions, including avoiding evidence tampering, have also been imposed.

The judgment noted the exchange of allegations between Khera and the Chief Minister, highlighting that the latter had made certain “unparliamentary remarks” towards Khera, including threats of arrest.

Stressing the need for equilibrium, the court stated, “We recognize that an individual's personal liberty, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, should not be jeopardized lightly. However, we also believe that the investigation into the alleged offenses must be conducted thoroughly and with integrity, with the appellant's cooperation.”

“Considering these factors, we conclude that when evaluating an anticipatory bail application, a careful balance must be maintained between the State's interest in a fair investigation and the individual's fundamental right to personal liberty as outlined in Article 21 of the Constitution,” the bench concluded.