Gauhati HC Slams 'Political Mileage' Play: No Bail for Pawan Khera in Forgery Firestorm

In a stinging rebuke to Congress leader Pawan Khera, the Gauhati High Court on April 24, 2026 , rejected his plea for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 . Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia ruled that serious allegations of forgery—beyond mere defamation—necessitate custodial interrogation to unravel the source of allegedly fake documents used to target Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. The single-judge bench drew a clear line: attacking a non-political figure for electoral gain isn't protected speech.

Press Conference Turns into Police Case: The Explosive Claims

The saga unfolded on April 5, 2026 , ahead of Assam's Assembly elections. At a Guwahati press conference, Khera, an Indian National Congress office bearer, brandished documents purporting to show Sarma held passports from Egypt, UAE, and Antigua & Barbuda. He further alleged she floated a Wyoming company and invested over ₹50,000 crores. Claiming these were sourced by his associates, Khera framed it as exposing corruption.

Sarma, asserting her Indian citizenship and denying all claims, filed an FIR that night. Guwahati's Crime Branch registered Case No. 04/2026 under Sections 175 (false statement linked to elections), 3(5), 3(6), 318 (cheating), 336(4), 337, 338 (forgery of valuable security), 340 (using forged document as genuine), 341(1), 351(1), 352 (intentional insult), 353, 356 (defamation), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 .

Khera, residing partly in Hyderabad, secured a week's transit anticipatory bail from the Telangana High Court on April 10 . Assam challenged it successfully before the Supreme Court , which stayed the order on April 15 and refused extension on April 17 , directing him to approach the Gauhati High Court .

Heavyweight Clash: Singhvi vs. Saikia in Court

Petitioner's Pitch: 'Just Political Banter'
Dr. A.M. Singhvi and K.N. Choudhury , senior advocates for Khera, argued the presser was timely election rhetoric against BJP's CM Sarma. They dubbed it "at best defamation," citing threats from the CM as harassment risks. No flight risk, they said, invoking Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 for bail when accusations stem from ulterior motives, and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2026 SCC OnLine SC 162) limiting arrests under BNSS Section 35 unless essential for investigation or evidence preservation. Many FIR sections were non-cognizable, they noted, as a magistrate had denied a non-bailable warrant.

State's Strong Riposte: Forgery, Not Free Speech
Advocate General D. Saikia countered that police had debunked Khera's documents as fake, triggering Section 339 BNS (forgery). He dismissed political motive claims, citing Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar (2022) 17 SCC 391: courts must prioritize prima facie case and offence gravity over absent custodial needs. Khera was dodging summons, demanding probe into his "associates."

Beyond Rhetoric: Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning

Justice Saikia meticulously weighed the scales. While Sibbia protects against mala fide arrests and Antil curbs unnecessary detentions, Sumitha Pradeep mandates scrutinizing the prima facie case first. Here, Khera's unrefuted reliance on falsified documents elevated it beyond " defamation simpliciter ."

Crucially, the court distinguished: "If Mr. Khera had raised those accusations against the Chief Minister... it would have been political rhetoric. But... he has dragged an innocent lady into the controversy." Sarma, not in politics, deserved no such targeting for "political mileage." No proof substantiated the claims, and police findings on fakes stood unchallenged. Custodial interrogation was vital "to find out who are the associates of Mr. Khera... and how... they had collected those documents."

The bench found no ulterior FIR motive, affirming it advanced " ends of justice ."

Bench's Blunt Quotes That Hit Hard

• On the Target: "But in order to gain political mileage, Mr. Khera has dragged an innocent lady into the controversy."
• Not Simple Smear: "This Court is of the opinion that under the given circumstances, this case cannot be termed as a case of defamation simpliciter . There are materials for a prima facie case under Section 339 of the BNS, 2023 ."
• Probe Imperative: " Custodial interrogation is necessary in this case to find out who are the associates of Mr. Khera, who had collected those documents for him."
• No Mala Fides: "The accusations brought against the present petitioner appears to stem from motive of furthering the ends of justice ."

Bail Booted: Custody Looms, Precedent Set

Khera's prayer "does not deserve to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail ." The application stands dismissed.

This ruling underscores that election-season barbs crossing into forgery territory demand rigorous probe, especially targeting non-public figures. It signals courts' intolerance for unverified document-dumping in political battles, potentially paving way for deeper investigations into Khera's network amid ongoing probes.