Passport battle: What conditions did the Supreme Court set in granting anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera?

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday granted anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera, directing him to cooperate with investigations, appear before police when summoned and not tamper with evidence. The court said he could not leave the country without prior permission and allowed the court of first instance to impose additional conditions while clarifying that its opinion would not affect the merits of the case and the proceedings should continue independently.Dismissing the Gauhati High Court order rejecting pre-arrest protection, a bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar said: “While adjudicating an anticipatory bail application, a careful balance must be struck between the interest of the state in ensuring fair investigation and the fundamental right to freedom of the individual under Article 21.” The court added: “In our view, the allegations and counter-allegations evident in this case appear, on their face, to be politically motivated and appear to have been influenced by this rivalry rather than disclosing the circumstances warranting a custodial interrogation.“

The Supreme Court granted relief and directed that Keira could be granted bail upon her arrest, subject to key conditions. He was ordered to cooperate with the investigation, appear when summoned by police and avoid influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The court also directed that he shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the competent court, while allowing the trial court to impose additional conditions if required.The Supreme Court clarified that its opinion on documents and facts was limited to the bail stage and would not affect the merits of the case. It also said the trial court should proceed independently and not be influenced by his remarks.

Supreme Court labels ‘political rivalry’ in lawsuit

The judge stressed that criminal law must be applied with caution, saying: “Criminal proceedings must be applied objectively and carefully to ensure that individual freedoms are not jeopardized by proceedings that may have politically competitive overtones.”It also faulted the reasoning of the Gauhati High Court, stating that it wrongly relied on a provision in the FIR that was not invoked and shifted the responsibility to the accused. “We are of the view that the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order are not based on a proper understanding of all the material on record and appear to be erroneous,” the Supreme Court said.The case stems from allegations that Keira claimed at press conferences in Delhi and Guwahati on April 5 that Riniki Bhuyan Sarma held multiple foreign passports and undisclosed overseas assets. She denied the allegations and filed an FIR accusing him of using forged documents.Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Kaira, argued that the case involved reputational damage and did not require a custodial arrest, insisting that Kaira was willing to cooperate and there was neither a flight risk nor the possibility of tampering with evidence.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Assam government, objected to the plea, arguing that the forged documents had been circulated publicly and custodial interrogation was necessary to trace their origins and any wider conspiracy.The FIR was registered by the Assam Crime Branch, citing provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to forgery, cheating, misrepresentation and defamation.