In a significant intervention at the intersection of criminal procedure, federal jurisdiction, and personal liberty, the Supreme Court has stayed the Telangana High Court’s order granting transit anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with an FIR registered by Assam Police.
The ruling, while interiIm in nature, raises deeper questions about the scope of transit anticipatory bail, the doctrine of territorial jurisdiction, and the increasing judicial concern over forum shopping in criminal proceedings.
The Telangana High Court had granted Khera one-week transit anticipatory bail, enabling him to approach the competent court in Assam. The relief was premised on the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21 and the recognised judicial practice of granting temporary protection where there is an imminent threat of arrest across state boundaries.
However, the Supreme Court, while issuing notice on the Assam Government’s challenge, stayed the operation of the High Court’s order, expressing prima facie concern over the manner in which such jurisdiction was invoked.
Notably, the Court clarified that if Khera approaches the appropriate court in Assam, the stay would not prejudice the consideration of his anticipatory bail application indicating that the Court’s focus is procedural propriety rather than substantive denial of relief.
The case originates from allegations made by Pawan Khera against Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, concerning alleged possession of multiple foreign passports and undisclosed foreign assets.
Following these statements, the Assam Police registered an FIR invoking multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including forgery, cheating, criminal conspiracy and defamation
The prosecution has characterised the allegations as part of a larger conspiracy involving fabricated material, while Khera has contended that the case is politically motivated and lacks legal substance.
