Anticipatory bail rejected where prima facie forgery via false documents in public political accusations against non-politician exists, prioritizing custodial interrogation over defamation claims.

ORDER(CAV)

Heard Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsels representing the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, Senior Advocate and the learned Advocate General, Assam.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, whereby the petitioner Shri Pawan Khera has prayed for pre-arrest bail in respect of Crime Branch P.S. Case No.04/2026 under Sections 175 / 3(5)/ 3(6)/ 318/ 336(4)/ 337/ 338/ 340/341(1)/351(1)/352/353/356 and 61(2) of , 2023.

3. The petitioner Shri Pawan Khera is an Office Bearer of Indian National Congress. On 5th April, 2026, he attended a Press Conference at Guwahati. In that Press Conference, by showing some documents, Shri Khera claimed that Smti. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of the Chief Minister of Assam holds Passports of Egypt, United Arab Emirates and of Antigua & Barbuda. Shri Khera also claimed that Smti. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma floated a company at Wyoming in the United States of America and also invested more than Rs.50,000 crores.

4. In order to make those claims, Shri Pawan Khera had shown different documents, which he claimed, that those documents were collected by his associates.

5. Aggrieved by the accusations, Smti. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma had immediately lodged an FIR before police and past midnight, police registered the case. In her FIR, Smti. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma has claimed that she is an Indian citizen and she does not hold any passport of any other countries nor she has floated the company in the United States of America.

6. Dr. Singhvi has submitted that the Press Conference was held just before the Assembly Elections in Assam. According to Dr. Singhvi, the husband of Smti. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma belongs to Bharatiya Janata Party and Shri Pawan Khera belongs to the Indian National Congress. According to Dr. Singhvi, whatever Mr. Khera had done was nothing but a political rhetoric aimed at the opposite party and at best, it might be a case of defamation.

7. Dr. Singhvi has submitted that after the said incident, the Chief Minister of Assam has been publicly threatening the petitioner Shri Khera and therefore, there is a possibility that he may suffer personal harassment if he is arrested by police.

8. In order to buttress his point, Dr. Singhvi has relied upon Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab , (1980) 2 SCC 565. Paragraph 31 of the said judgment is quoted as under:

“31. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other conside