Supreme Court Denies Pawan Khera More Transit Bail In Assam Case Over Remarks On Himanta Sarma’s Wife

The Supreme Court refused to extend Pawan Khera's transit anticipatory bail in the Assam case. The matter now relies on Gauhati High Court or Assam trial court proceedings, amid allegations of forged documents and ongoing investigations into Riniki Bhuyan Sharma and related assets.

The Supreme Court on Friday declined Congress leader Pawan Khera’s request to prolong his transit anticipatory bail in the Assam case over allegations against chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, regarding foreign passports. The court’s refusal left Khera without interim protection while the criminal case in Assam, based on his press conference statements, continued under investigation.

Khera had moved a fresh application seeking an extension of the protection that arose from the Telangana High Court’s 10 April order, which granted one week of transit anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court had already stayed that relief on 15 April. Khera argued that his regular anticipatory bail plea was listed before the Gauhati High Court on Monday and wanted cover until Tuesday.

Supreme Court anticipatory bail observations in Pawan Khera case

A bench of justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar questioned why Khera approached the Supreme Court again rather than seeking relief directly from the Gauhati High Court. The bench asked, "Our order was passed on April 15 [Wednesday]. Instead of moving another application here, why did not you file it there?" The judges stressed the need to approach the competent court handling the bail plea.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Khera, addressed the Supreme Court’s earlier remarks that an allegedly "forged and fabricated" Aadhaar card accompanied the Telangana High Court bail filing. Singhvi explained that the incorrect Aadhaar was submitted in haste and claimed it was replaced with the proper document during that hearing. Singhvi maintained the Supreme Court had not been told about this correction when passing the stay order.

Supreme Court anticipatory bail dispute with Assam Police over Pawan Khera

Singhvi urged that any critical observation by the Supreme Court should not colour future decisions on Khera’s anticipatory bail. Singhvi said, "This court was misled by way of suppression. I made a small error by filing a different document, and this observation made by the court will bind any court deciding the anticipatory bail," arguing that lower courts might feel constrained. The bench responded, "Small error? You cannot file a forged and fabricated document. And we do not agree that they [Assam police] have taken an order by misleading the court."

The judges again clarified that once a regular anticipatory bail application is filed before the authorised court, that forum must decide the matter independently. They said it should disregard both the earlier Telangana High Court transit bail order and the Supreme Court’s subsequent stay. The emphasis was on allowing the Gauhati High Court or trial court to assess Khera’s bail claim on its own record.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing Assam Police, opposed any extension of transit anticipatory bail and said Khera was attempting to prolong temporary protection instead of facing the case in Assam. Mehta pointed out that a district court in Assam remained open on Friday, so Khera could approach it without delay. Assam Police had already challenged the Telangana High Court’s 10 April order, alleging that Khera relied on "forged" documents, including an Aadhaar mentioning a New Delhi address.

Supreme Court anticipatory bail row and allegations by Pawan Khera

Assam Police maintained that the alleged offence arose in Assam, as the press interaction where Khera spoke about Riniki Bhuyan Sharma took place there and the FIR was lodged in that state. Investigators argued Khera should have moved a court in Assam instead of seeking transit anticipatory bail in Telangana. Officials said the Aadhaar used for that petition showed Khera’s residence as New Delhi, not Telangana.

Khera defended the Telangana filing by stating that Khera’s wife lives in Hyderabad and had contested assembly elections there, giving him a connection to that jurisdiction. Describing the allegations as political retaliation, Khera told the court, "This is principally a defamation charge, and just because I have annoyed the chief minister, 100 policemen are sent to Delhi." Khera suggested the police response was disproportionate to the complaint.

The dispute began when Khera, during a media interaction, alleged that Himanta Biswa Sarma’s spouse, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, possessed three active foreign passports and had multiple undeclared assets in the United States. Sarma later filed an FIR, prompting a formal investigation. Assam Police then raided Khera’s Delhi residence while Khera was absent and started steps to question Khera in connection with the case.

To secure safe passage to the appropriate Assam court, Khera approached the Telangana High Court, which allowed limited interim protection as transit anticipatory bail and directed Khera to seek regular bail from the jurisdictional court in Assam. The Himanta Biswa Sarma government challenged that order before the Supreme Court, which stayed the transit relief on 15 April. With Friday’s refusal to extend protection, Khera now depends on forthcoming hearings before courts in Assam and the Gauhati High Court to seek any further bail relief.