‘Constitutional Cowboy’ Vs ‘Absconding Fugitive’: Pawan Khera-Hamanta Sarma Trade Barbs In SC

Last Updated:April 30, 2026, 13:03 IST

The prosecution told the Supreme Court that Pawan Khera was “absconding” and not cooperating, arguing custodial interrogation was necessary to probe alleged fabricated documents.

The Supreme Court on Thursday heard the anticipatory bail plea of Congress leader Pawan Khera, during which the prosecution alleged that he was “absconding" and not cooperating with the investigation, even as the defence strongly contested the claim and questioned the need for custodial arrest.

Appearing for the prosecution, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that Khera had been evading authorities since the alleged offence and was actively avoiding cooperation.

“Since the date of the offence, he has been absconding. He is releasing videos that ‘I am not absconding, I am just being safe from a particular Police force’. That is absconding. He is not cooperating," Mehta submitted.

The prosecution further argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the origins of allegedly “fake, doctored and fabricated documents" used in Khera’s claims.

Mehta said investigators needed to determine “how he forged this document or who helped him," adding that the case involved serious allegations, including fabrication of passports and official seals.

He also raised concerns about possible foreign links, questioning “what was the motive behind it" and whether any external entities were involved in creating the documents.

The prosecution maintained that the case went beyond defamation and required a deeper investigation into potential criminal intent and accomplices.

DEFENCE HITS BACK, QUESTIONS ARREST

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Khera, rejected the “absconding fugitive" narrative, arguing that the allegations were exaggerated and unsupported by evidence.

He said the case primarily concerned reputational claims and did not warrant arrest.

Singhvi stressed that arrest should not be used as a tool for harassment.

“This is not a matter in which you need an arrest unless you want to humiliate me and harass me. Arrest is never a first choice, it should be the last resort," he argued.

He also questioned the scale of police action, stating that “70-80 policemen came to Nizamuddin as if they’re hunting a terrorist," and contended that the prosecution’s claims of flight risk and non-cooperation were based on conjecture rather than material evidence.

On the issue of cooperation, Singhvi told the court that Khera had expressed willingness to assist the investigation and that there was no demonstrable need for custodial interrogation.

He further argued that most of the offences invoked were either bailable or did not justify arrest.

CASE BACKGROUND

Khera approached the Supreme Court after the Gauhati High Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea on April 24.

The case stems from allegations made by Khera that Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife possessed multiple passports and undisclosed foreign assets.

Following these claims, Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, filed criminal complaints against Khera under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Earlier, the Telangana High Court had granted Khera interim transit anticipatory bail, which was subsequently stayed by the Supreme Court, directing him to approach the Gauhati High Court.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the bench reserved its judgment on Khera’s plea.

News india ‘Constitutional Cowboy’ Vs ‘Absconding Fugitive’: Pawan Khera-Hamanta Sarma Trade Barbs In SC

Read More