SC grants Pawan Khera bail, warns liberty can’t yield to political rivalry

THe sublime margaret court on th granted united states congress voice Pawan Khera protection from arrest in a case linked to allegations he made that Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, held foreign passports. The court said that personal liberty cannot be jeopardised by criminal proceedings that may be coloured by political rivalry.In an order released on Friday, a bench of justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar said individual liberty is a cherished fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and the criminal process must be exercised with objectivity and caution.“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,” the court said.The bench directed Khera to cooperate with the investigation, not leave the country without prior permission of the trial court, and not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence during the pendency of the investigation or trial.“The appellant is directed to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in the 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,” the order stated.The bench had reserved its verdict on Thursday after hearing detailed submissions from senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Khera, and solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who represented the Assam government.Khera had approached the top court against an April 24 Gauhati high court order refusing him pre-arrest bail. The high court had observed that custodial interrogation may be necessary in view of Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (forgery of documents), after Assam Police alleged that documents relied upon by Khera were forged.The Supreme Court, however, noted that the FIR itself did not mention Section 339 and said the high court’s observations on that offence did not appear correct.“The FIR does not mention the offence of Section 339 and merely on the basis of a statement made by the Advocate General, observations made by the High Court regarding Section 339 of BNS do not appear to be correct,” the bench said.The court further noted that the allegations were directed against the chief minister’s wife and not Sarma himself, and said the dispute prima facie appeared politically motivated.“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,” it said.The bench also referred to certain “unparliamentary remarks” allegedly made by Sarma against Khera in press statements placed before it by Singhvi. It noted that when these remarks were put to Mehta, he neither defended them nor questioned their authenticity.Observing that previous Supreme Court rulings have set a high threshold for curtailing personal liberty, the bench said, “Personal liberty of an individual enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be put to jeopardy. At the same time, we are also of the view that for any offences as alleged in the FIR, the investigation should be completed with integrity and in full swing with co-operation of the appellant.”Reiterating that liberty is a cherished constitutional value, the court added: “Any deprivation thereof must be justified on a higher threshold, particularly where the surrounding circumstances may indicate the presence of political overtones.”The court said the trial court may impose any further conditions it deems appropriate and clarified that observations made in its order should not influence proceedings on merits.The case against Khera was registered by Assam Police on April 6 under various provisions of the BNS. His press conference was held days before the state went to polls on April 9.Singhvi argued that the prosecution was politically motivated and that Khera had neither fabricated nor forged any document. “It is quite clear that those documents were received from someone else. Therefore, prima facie offences are not made out. At best, it can be said to have been uttered for the purpose of gaining political edge having no intention or mens rea for commission of offence,” he submitted.Mehta, opposing the relief, said the investigation was progressing and that a prima facie case of forgery was made out. He also questioned Khera’s conduct after registration of the FIR and argued that statements made during an election period could amount to public mischief rather than being confined to an individual complainant.