Appeal
Present appeal against refusal of grant of A.B
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.
Facts
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.
Transit Anticipatory bail was granted by Telangana High Court but regular A.B is dismissed by Gauhati High Court
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 application it be decided uninfluenced by the observations made by the Telangana High Court in the order dated 10.04.2026 or by this Court while staying the said order. On filing the application seeking anticipatory bail before the Gauhati High Court, it was rejected vide impugned order dated 24.04.2026, giving rise to this Appeal.
Analysis
14) Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties and the findings as recorded by the Gauhati High Court, it is imperative to refer to the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra), wherein this Court observed as thus:
“para.31 ….”
15) From the above, it is clear that in case accusations as alleged do not reflect any motive to secure ends of justice, but reflect an ulterior motive and object to cause injury or to humiliate the applicant, which is discernable, the direction to release in the event of arrest has to be ordered usually. On the contrary, if the Court finds that on the basis of the antecedents and with an intent to take advantage of the order of the anticipatory bail, the accused wishes to evade from the clutches of law, the said order would not be made. Conversely, this Court observed that it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides. Equally, the absence of any likelihood of the applicant absconding does not, by itself, mandate the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court emphasized that several other relevant considerations must guide the exercise of judicial discretion while deciding whether to grant or refuse anticipatory bail. The nature of the seriousness of the proposed charges, context of the events, the possibility of tampering and influencing witnesses and evidence, the larger interest of the public or the State are some of the considerations which the Court has to keep in mind while deciding such application.
16) In the recent judgment in the case of Pradip N. Sharma (supra), this Court in para 18 has observed as under:
“para.18….”
Reason for refusal of A.B is that custodial interrogation was absolutely necessary
18) In the said case, the dispute was between Pawan Gandhi Charity Trust and Sinhgad Technical Education Society. After an interim 35-month lease expired in 2011, the Trust issued a notice for the Society to vacate the premises. The Society refused, prompting the Trust to file a criminal complaint alleging that the appellant forged an 87-year lease deed, altered original notarized documents, and submitted false information to the Education Department to unlawfully retain control of the property. Given the severity of these forgery allegations and the need to recover the fabricated documents, the courts, including this Court, denied the appellant's request for anticipatory bail, ruling that custodial interrogation was absolutely necessary.
19) In the wake of the observations of the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra), in the matter of grant of anticipatory bail and in the facts of the present case, it is required to be examined whether the discretion of grant of anticipatory bail ought to be exercised by this Court and whether the High Court was justified in refusing to grant anticipatory bail.
20) In the facts of this case, it cannot be disputed that in the State of Assam the assembly elections were in progress and the polling of votes was scheduled for 09.04.2026. The incident as alleged in the FIR occurred on 06.04.2026 which is prior to the conclusion of the election campaign. The Appellant being the representative of a national political party organized a press conference making some allegations against the complainant, who is the wife of the Chief Minister of the State. While doing so, three passports were displayed by the Appellant alleging that the complainant is having passports of three countries, out of which, two are of Muslim countries, however, complainant’s husband’s politics is based on hatred against the Muslim community in the State. In addition, it was further stated by the Appellant that in the election affidavit furnished by the husband of the complainant, the details of the companies and properties owned by his wife has not been disclosed.
Supreme Court taking consideration of the point that not only the appellant so also the husband of the complainant also has made certain unparliamentary remarks against the appellant in various press statements
21) It is the case of the prosecution that upon investigation it has been found that the passports purported to be belonging to the complainant are fake and has been displayed by the Appellant to defame the wife of the Chief Minister, intentionally causing harm to their reputation and for this purpose, the press conference was organized. At the same time, it is true that the documents which have been exhibited by the Appellant are in custody of prosecution and they have made some preliminary investigation thereon. However, it primarily appears that merely to gain some political momentum in favour of his party, this statement has been made by the Appellant. Albeit, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Chief Minister of the State, who is also husband of the complainant, has made certain unparliamentary remarks against the Appellant in various press statements which have been filed before this Court vide annexure P/5.
24) At this stage, we are cognizant of the fact that personal liberty of an individual enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be put to jeopardy lightly. But 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.
Court must balance carefully State’s interest and accused’s fundamental right to liberty while disposing Anticipatory Bail application
25) Having regard to the aforesaid considerations, we are of the opinion that while adjudicating an application for anticipatory bail, a careful balance must be struck between the State’s interest in ensuring a fair investigation and the individual’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in light of the principles enunciated in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra). In this context, 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. We are further of the opinion that 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. The right to personal liberty is a cherished fundamental right, and any deprivation thereof must be justified on a higher threshold, particularly where the surrounding circumstances may indicate the presence of political overtones.
Conclusion
26) Considering all these aspects as discussed above and in conspectus of the present case, we are of the view that the tests as enumerated for grant of anticipatory bail in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra) finds favour with the Appellant.
High court’s dismissal order is not correct based on the statement made by the Advocate General it should have appreciate the material placed on papers
27) In our view, the observations as made by the High Court in the order impugned is not based on correct appreciation of all the material which has been placed on record and appears to be erroneous, in particular shifting the burden on the accused. In addition, without alleging any offence under Section 339 of BNS and merely on the basis of statement made by the learned Advocate General, observations made regarding Section 339 of BNS do not appear to be correct. Accordingly, the present appeal stands allowed with following directions –
a) The Appellant is directed to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in 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;
b) The Appellant is directed to co-operate in the investigation and to appear before the police station as and when required and intimated;
c) The Appellant shall not influence or tamper with any of the evidence during pendency of the investigation or trial;
d) Further, he shall not leave India without prior leave of the competent Court;
e) We further direct that if the trial Court deems it fit to impose some other conditions, it has the discretion to do the needful and put those conditions during trial.
28) We further make it clear that the reference of the documents and the material made hereinabove is only for the purpose of consideration of grant of anticipatory bail and it has nothing to do with the merits of the criminal case. Therefore, the competent Court shall not be influenced by those observations and shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
Reference
Judgment cited
- Precedents Cited by the Appellant (Pawan Khera)
- Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565: Used to argue that anticipatory bail is a safeguard for personal liberty and should not be restricted by unnecessary “judicial gloss.”
- Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat and Another: Used to argue that custodial interrogation is generally unnecessary when the case relies on documentary evidence and there is no risk of the accused fleeing.
- Precedents Cited by the Respondent (State of Assam)
- Maruti Nivrutti Navale v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 235: The State relied heavily on this case to argue that when documents are allegedly fabricated or forged (in this case, the passport), custodial interrogation becomes essential, making the grant of anticipatory bail unjustified.
- Additional Reference by the Court
- Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra: Referenced as the standard framework for balancing the “life and liberty” of the individual against the “interest of the society” and the needs of a fair investigation.
Acts and Sections involved
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Cited to emphasize that the right to personal liberty is a “cherished fundamental right” that cannot be curtailed lightly, especially in cases influenced by political rivalry.
- Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra: Although not always quoted verbatim in every summary, this case is the standard corollary to Sibbia for determining the factors and parameters for granting anticipatory bail, which the Court applied in balancing state interests with individual liberty.
Orders/Judgments from Lower Courts
- High Court of Assam, Gauhati Order (24.04.2026) in Anticipatory Bail No. 804/2026: The impugned order which was set aside by the Supreme Court.
- Telangana High Court Transit Bail Order: Mentioned as part of the procedural history where the appellant initially sought protection.
Party
Pawan Khera vs. State of Assam – Criminal Appeal No. 2294 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7786 of 2026)- 2026 INSC 437- April 30, 2026 – Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
