The Supreme Court of India on Friday granted anticipatory bail to Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera in a case filed by the Assam Police on a complaint by Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, wife of Himanta Biswa Sarma, over his claim that she holds multiple passports.
The court said the allegations and counter-allegations appeared to be “politically motivated” and did not require custodial interrogation.
A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandorkar heard submissions made by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi in favor of Khaira and counter-arguments made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Assam government before reserving judgment.
Khaira had appealed the Guwahati High Court order denying him anticipatory bail in the defamation and forgery case linked to allegations against Sarma.
Singhvi argued that custodial detention of Kaira was not required in the defamation case when his client was not a flight risk and available for questioning. “The question is the necessity of arrest. Why is it necessary to humiliate with pretrial detention?” He said. Singhvi argued that the charges against Pawan Khera are bailable, including Section 339 (forgery under BNS), which he claims were wrongly added later and do not even form part of the original FIR.
Mehta, representing the Assam government, said the custodial arrest of Pawan Khera was necessary given the “seriousness of the allegations” against him.
He claimed that official documents had been fabricated and said a comprehensive investigation was needed to determine who created items such as passport stamps, QR codes and other official marks. Mehta also asserted that Khaira had been evading investigation since the date of the crime, claiming that he was “on the run” while he continued to post videos and remained out of the reach of the authorities.
What is the situation?
An FIR was lodged against Khera by Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sharma, after Khera claimed in a press conference that she holds several foreign passports and undeclared foreign assets.
Earlier, the Supreme Court refused to extend anticipatory transit bail granted to Keira by the Telangana High Court and directed him to approach the competent court in Assam. However, she clarified that her previous observations would not prejudice the competent court’s consideration of his petition.
However, the Supreme Court clarified its earlier order under which it stayed the one-week anticipatory transit bail granted by the Telangana High Court to Kehra to the extent that it would not have any adverse impact on the bench, which would decide on Khaira’s petition.
Khaira then approached the Guwahati High Court, where he was denied compensation. He then moved to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court order. The Supreme Court heard the arguments of both parties and reserved its decision.
(with ANI inputs)
