NEW DELHI : The Supreme Court of India on Thursday reserved its verdict on an anticipatory bail plea filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with a case registered by Assam Police following a complaint by Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, spouse of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.

A bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul Chandurkar heard arguments from both sides after the Gauhati High Court rejected Khera’s anticipatory bail application. The case arises from allegations made by Khera claiming that Riniki Bhuyan Sharma possessed multiple foreign passports and had financial interests abroad.

Appearing for Khera, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that custodial interrogation was unwarranted and questioned the need for arrest. “Why is it necessary to humiliate with a custodial interrogation?” Singhvi submitted, maintaining that the case primarily involved allegations of defamation and reputational harm.

Singhvi termed the matter “unprecedented” and said concerns over arrest had intensified due to alleged public remarks by Himanta Biswa Sarma. He claimed some of the comments were “unprintable” and suggested that Khera could spend the rest of his life in an Assam jail, describing such statements as inappropriate for a constitutional office holder.

The senior counsel further argued that Khera was not a flight risk, had expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and that most offences invoked in the FIR were bailable. He also alleged that a large contingent of Assam Police personnel reached Khera’s residence in Delhi “as if he is a terrorist.”During the hearing, Singhvi objected to the Gauhati High Court’s reference to Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, stating that the provision was not part of the original complaint or FIR.

He also criticised the High Court’s observation referring to the complainant as an “innocent lady,” arguing that such remarks amounted to pre-judging issues meant for trial. . Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Assam, contended that the documents cited by Khera were “fake and forged” and that no such passports had been issued by any competent authority.

Mehta argued that custodial interrogation was essential to identify those involved in preparing the alleged documents and to determine whether any foreign elements were linked to the case. He maintained that the matter extended beyond defamation and alleged that Khera had been “absconding” since the FIR was registered.

The State further submitted that custodial interrogation was qualitatively different from routine questioning and necessary to uncover the broader scope of the alleged offences. The FIR, registered at the Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station, invokes multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including offences related to false statements linked to elections, cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, intentional insult, and defamation.

Earlier, Khera had approached the Telangana High Court, which granted him transit anticipatory bail for one week on April 10. The Supreme Court of India subsequently stayed the interim protection on April 15 and directed him to seek relief before the appropriate court in Assam. The Gauhati High Court later rejected his anticipatory bail plea, observing that custodial interrogation was necessary and that the allegations went beyond a case of defamation.