Congress leader Pawan Khera gets anticipatory bail in SC
New Delhi: The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with the FIR registered by Assam Police on the complaint by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, over Khera's allegation that she held multiple passports.
A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar set aside the Gauhati High Court’s order refusing anticipatory bail and held that the circumstances of the case indicated the presence of political rivalry, warranting protection of Khera’s personal liberty.
The case, involving allegations of defamation, forgery and criminal conspiracy, was registered against Khera after he claimed at a press conference that Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan, possessed multiple foreign passports and undisclosed overseas assets. Assam Police visited his Delhi residence on April 7, but he was not present.
Khera then moved the Telangana High Court seeking transit anticipatory bail. On April 10, the court granted him one week’s protection to approach a competent court in Assam. However, the Supreme Court stayed this relief on April 15 after an appeal by the Assam government. On April 17, the apex court declined to extend the interim protection and directed Khera to approach the Gauhati High Court.
He subsequently filed a plea before the Gauhati High Court, arguing that his statements were made in a political and public context during a press conference and had been selectively interpreted to justify criminal proceedings. He also alleged that the FIR was driven by ulterior motives and amounted to political vendetta by the complainant, the Chief Minister’s wife.
On April 24, the Gauhati High Court rejected his plea, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the sources of the documents on which Khera based his claims about multiple passports and a U.S.-based company. The court observed that while remarks against a political figure might fall within the realm of political rhetoric, extending such allegations to a private individual changed the character of the case. It further noted that the matter went beyond mere defamation and that Khera had yet to substantiate his claims.
Following the High Court’s refusal, Khera approached the Supreme Court challenging the order.
