The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on a petition filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera, who is seeking anticipatory bail. The plea follows an FIR registered by Assam Police based on a complaint by Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, regarding Khera’s allegations that she held multiple passports.
Court Proceedings and Legal Arguments
A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul Chandurkar heard the case, which challenges the Gauhati High Court’s previous rejection of Khera’s anticipatory bail plea.
Representing Khera, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi described the matter as “an unprecedented case.” He pointed to public statements made by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, referring to him as the “boss of the boss of the boss of the Prosecutor.”
Singhvi claimed that Sarma had threatened that Khera would spend the rest of his life in an Assam jail. “Dr. Ambedkar would turn in his grave if he had imagined that a Constitutional office holder will speak like a Constitutional cowboy or a Constitutional Rambo,” Singhvi submitted to the court.
The defense argued that the case centers on defamation and reputational damage, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. Singhvi questioned why it was necessary to “humiliate with a custodial interrogation,” noting that most offences in the FIR are bailable and that Khera is an active politician rather than a “hardened criminal.”
Singhvi further challenged the Gauhati High Court’s order for referring to Section 339 BNS regarding the possession of forged documents, an offence he claimed was not in the complaint or FIR. However, Justice Maheshwari noted that Section 339 covers various grades of offences, some carrying penalties up to seven years or even life imprisonment.
The State’s Opposition
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the State of Assam, opposed the bail plea. He informed the bench that while Khera alleged the Chief Minister’s wife held passports from three other countries, police investigations revealed the images shown during Khera’s press conference were forged.
The Solicitor General also mentioned the discovery of fake documents concerning a company registered in the USA. He argued that custodial interrogation is essential to identify accomplices and determine if “foreign hands” were involved in fabricating the passports.
SG Mehta stated that Khera has been “absconding” since the FIR was registered and emphasized that this is “not a simple defamation case.” He stressed the need to understand the intent behind the forgery and the role of any foreign elements interested in interfering with elections.
Case Background and Timeline
The legal conflict began when Riniki Bhuyan Sarma filed an FIR at the Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station over Khera’s public claims about her foreign passports and financial interests abroad.
Khera first sought relief from the Telangana High Court, which granted one week’s transit anticipatory bail on April 10. However, on April 15, the Supreme Court stayed this operation, though it allowed Khera to apply for bail independently in Assam.
The Gauhati High Court subsequently rejected Khera’s plea, stating that custodial interrogation was necessary to find the source of the documents. The court also observed that Khera failed to substantiate his allegations and had drawn a private individual into a political controversy.
Potential Next Steps
The Supreme Court may now either grant anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera, potentially protecting him from arrest, or uphold the Gauhati High Court’s decision. If the petition is dismissed, Khera could face custodial interrogation by the Assam Police to investigate the alleged forgery and foreign connections.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the primary allegations against Pawan Khera?
Pawan Khera is accused of making false public claims that the wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma held multiple foreign passports and had financial interests abroad, using documents that the state claims are forged.
Why did the Gauhati High Court deny anticipatory bail?
The High Court held that the case was not one of simple defamation and that custodial interrogation was required to determine the source of the documents used by Khera. It also noted he failed to prove his allegations.
Which legal provisions are cited in the FIR?
The FIR invokes multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Section 175 (false statement in connection with an election), 318 (cheating), 338 (forgery of valuable security or will), 337 (forgery of public record), 340 (using forged document as genuine), 352 (intentional insult), and 356 (defamation).
How should the legal system balance the protection of personal liberty for political figures against the need for custodial investigation in forgery cases?
