Passport controversy: What conditions did the Supreme Court keep while granting anticipatory bail to Pawan Kheda? india news
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday granted anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Kheda and directed him to cooperate in the investigation, appear before the police when called and not tamper with evidence. The court said he cannot leave the country without prior permission and allowed the trial court to impose additional conditions, while making it clear that his comments would not affect the merits of the case and the proceedings should continue independently.A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar set aside the Gauhati High Court order denying pre-arrest protection and said, “While deciding an application for anticipatory bail, a careful balance must be struck between the interest of the State in ensuring a fair investigation and the individual’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21.” The court said, “We are of the opinion that the allegations and counter-allegations, as evident in the present case, prima facie appear to be politically motivated and influenced by such rivalries, rather than revealing a situation requiring custodial interrogation.“
Giving relief, the top court directed that in the event of arrest, Khera should be released on anticipatory bail subject to key conditions. They have been asked to cooperate in the investigation, appear before the police whenever called and refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The court also directed that he should not leave the country without the prior permission of a competent court, while allowing the trial court to impose additional conditions if necessary.The Supreme Court clarified that its comments on documents and facts are limited to the bail stage and will not affect the merits of the case. It also said that the trial court should proceed independently without being influenced by his comments.
Top court highlights ‘political rivalry’ in proceedings
The bench emphasized that the criminal law must be applied with caution, adding, “Criminal procedure must be carried out with impartiality and caution to ensure that individual liberty is not jeopardized by proceedings being influenced by political rivalry.”It also found fault in the reasoning of the Gauhati High Court, noting that it had wrongly relied on provisions not invoked in the FIR and placed the entire burden on the accused. “In our view, the observations made in the order passed by the High Court are not based on a correct appreciation of all the materials placed on record and appear to be misconceived,” the top court said.The case stems from allegations that Kheda had claimed during press conferences in Delhi and Guwahati on April 5 that Riniki Bhuyan Sarma had multiple foreign passports and undeclared foreign assets. He denied the allegations and filed an FIR accusing him of using fabricated documents.Appearing for Kheda, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the case pertains to harm to reputation and does not require custodial arrest, adding that Kheda was willing to cooperate and was neither a flight risk nor likely to be tampered with evidence.Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Assam government, argued that the forged documents were publicly circulated and custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth their origin and any wider conspiracy.The FIR, filed by the Assam Crime Branch, invokes provisions related to forgery, cheating, false statement and defamation under the Indian Judicial Code.