IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Anticipatory bail – While adjudicating application for anticipatory bail, careful balance must be struck between State’s interest in ensuring fair investigation and individual’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution.
(2) Criminal process must be applied with objectivity and circumspection so as to ensure that individual liberty is not imperilled by proceedings that may be coloured by political rivalry.Cases Referred:
Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 [Para 10] – Relied.
Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine 457 [Para 10] – Relied.
Maruti Nivrutti Navale v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 235 [Para 11] – Distinguished.

ORDER :

1. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Respondent- State, are ad idem that the matter may be heard on merits; therefore, it would be appropriate to finally dispose of this appeal.

2. Leave granted.

3. Assailing order dated 24.04.2026 passed by the High Court of Assam, Gauhati (hereinafter, ‘Gauhati High Court’) in Anticipatory Bail No. 804/2026, whereby the Gauhati High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail, the present Appeal has been filed.

4. The Appellant has been 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 (hereinafter, ‘BNS’).

5. In the FIR, it is alleged that the Appellant, who is an office bearer of a national political party, addressed two press conferences on 05.04.2026, 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 further 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 has a company registered at Wyoming, USA with an investment of more than Rs. 50,000/- crores. She also owns and possesses certain assets and properties in Dubai and these facts have not been disclosed in the election affidavit filed by the husband of the complainant.

6. 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 as indicated hereinabove has been sought. The press conferences allegedly was held on 05.04.2026 at about 6 p.m. in the evening and the FIR was registered at 12.49 a.m. in the intervening night of 05.04.2026 and 06.04.2026. After giving such statements the Appellant travelled to Delhi and later to Hyderabad.

7. On the next date, i.e., 07.04.2026, 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 has the authority to arrest the Appellant under Section 35 of the BNSS. With these observations and in view of the guidelines laid down by this Court, the application seeking issuance of the non-bailable warrant was rejected.

8. In the interregnum, Appellant sought transit anticipatory bail before the Telangana High Court which was granted vide order dated 10.04.2026 in CRLP No. 5285 of 2026. Challenging the same, the State filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6818 of 2026 before this Court, wherein initially vide order dated 15.04.2026, the operation of the order of the Telangana High Court was stayed. Subsequently, the Appellant filed I.A. No. 116724 of 2026 seeking vacation of the stay and the SLP (Crl. as well as the I.A. were disposed of vide order dated 17.04.2026 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 a