The Assam Police filed the first information report (FIR) following a complaint by Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of the Assam CM.
A Bench led by Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar issued the ruling after reserving their decision a day earlier on Khera’s plea, which challenged the Gauhati High Court’s denial of his anticipatory bail application.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s conclusions “are not based on a correct understanding of all the presented material and seem erroneous, especially in shifting the burden onto the accused,” according to LiveLaw.
The Bench further emphasized that the matter appeared to have political undertones. The allegations and counter-allegations “seem to be politically motivated and influenced by rivalry, rather than indicating a situation necessitating custodial interrogation, and their validity can be established at trial.”
Also Read: GST collections rise 8.7% to ₹2.42 lakh crore in April despite no cess and a tough environmentConditional relief; emphasis on liberty
In granting relief, the Court instructed that Khera be released on anticipatory bail if arrested, subject to standard conditions such as cooperation with the investigation and restrictions on international travel without prior court approval, as stated by LiveLaw.
“The right to personal liberty is a fundamental right of great significance, and any infringement must meet a higher standard, especially where political factors are evident,” the Court remarked, underscoring constitutional protections.
The Bench also criticized the High Court for mentioning an offence under Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) even though it was absent from the FIR, remarking that such comments should not rely solely on arguments from the Advocate General.
Case Background
The FIR lodged at the Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station included various sections of the BNS, addressing issues like cheating, forgery, defamation, and intentional insult.
Khera had previously received interim protection from the Telangana High Court before approaching the Gauhati High Court, which denied him bail due to perceived needs for custodial interrogation.
Also Read: US Iran War Ceasefire News Live Updates
The Supreme Court, however, underscored the necessity of balancing investigative needs with individual rights, stating, “At this stage, we acknowledge that an individual’s personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be compromised lightly.”
