The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a petition filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR registered by the Assam Police on a complaint filed by Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, over allegations of possessing multiple foreign passports.
The Bench of Justice J K Maheshwari and Justice Atul Chandurkar reserved it’s judgement on the petition challenging the Gauhati High Court’s order, which rejected his plea for anticipatory bail.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Khera, argued that the case primarily involved allegations of defamation and reputational harm, and did not justify arrest or custodial interrogation.
He submitted that Khera was willing to cooperate with the investigation and that safeguards could be put in place to ensure his presence. He also questioned the necessity of custodial interrogation, describing it as excessive in the facts of the case.
Singhvi further contended that the High Court relied on provisions that were not part of the FIR and made observations that could prejudice the trial. He stressed that Khera’s personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must be protected and argued that the prosecution was politically motivated.
Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Assam, submitted that the allegations go beyond simple defamation. He told the Court that Khera had displayed purported passport documents during a press conference, which the investigation has found to be forged.
The State argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to identify the source of the documents, possible accomplices, and any larger conspiracy, including potential foreign involvement.
The State also submitted that Khera had not been available to the investigating agency since the registration of the FIR and that custodial interrogation was qualitatively different from routine questioning.
The case originated from an FIR registered at the Guwahati Crime Branch based on allegations that Khera made false public statements about Sarma’s wife holding multiple passports and having foreign financial interests.
The FIR invoked several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including offences related to cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, intentional insult, and defamation.
Earlier, the Telangana High Court had granted Khera interim protection to approach the appropriate court in Assam. However, the Supreme Court later stayed that relief and directed that any application for anticipatory bail be decided independently by the competent court in Assam.
Subsequently, the Gauhati High Court rejected Khera’s plea, observing that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the origin of the documents and that the case could not be treated as a simple defamation matter.
The post Supreme Court reserves verdict on Pawan Khera anticipatory bail plea appeared first on India Legal.