Anticipatory Bail to Pawan Khera in Alleged Defamation Case Linked to Assam CM’s Wife
New Delhi: The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in the matter related to alleged forgery and defamation in connection with alleged false allegations against Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, wife of Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma.
This comes after the Supreme Court earlier on Thursday reserved its verdict on the plea filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera challenging the Gauhati High Court order denying him bail in a defamation and forgery case linked to allegations against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
A bench comprising Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar heard submissions by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of Khera and counter arguments by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on behalf of the Assam government before reserving the verdict.
Singhvi strongly criticized the statements attributed to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and argued that he was acting like a constitutional cowboy. “Dr BR Ambedkar would have turned in his grave if he had imagined that a constitutional officer would behave like a ‘constitutional cowboy’ or a ‘constitutional Rambo’,” the senior lawyer said. He argued that it was unnecessary to keep Khera in custody in a defamation case where his client was not a flight risk. “There is interrogation, there is no flight risk. The question is the necessity of arrest. Why is it necessary to humiliate with arrest?” he said.
Singhvi argued that the charges leveled against Pawan Khera were bailable, including Section 339 (forgery under BNS), which he claimed were added later by mistake and did not even form part of the original FIR. He stated that arrest should be a last resort, especially in such crimes. He said that the Gauhati High Court judgment stated that he (Khera) does not deserve the ‘privilege’ of anticipatory bail in a case where freedom is a matter of right and not privilege.
Singhvi added that this was a case where “poison” and “evil” gushed out from the prosecution due to political pressure. “This is a case where poison and evil emanate from the prosecutors’ bosses, their bosses, their bosses, their bosses!” he stated. Singhvi also alleged that the police resorted to multiple allegations, evaded, tampered with evidence and exerted political influence without any justification.
Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta, representing the Assam government, defended the need for custodial interrogation in the matter and noted the “seriousness of the allegations” against Khera. Mehta argued that the case against Khera involved alleged forgery of official documents and the investigation had already revealed that these documents were fake.
He stressed the need for a thorough investigation to determine who created elements such as passport stamps, QR codes and other official markers. Mehta said the investigation should reveal who forged the documents, whether Khera acted with accomplices and whether the alleged actions had broader consequences, including possible external links during the election period.
He also claimed that Khera had evaded investigation since the date of the crime, “escaped” and remained out of reach of authorities as he continued to post videos. The FIR against Khera was filed by Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, wife of Assam Chief Minister (CM) Himanta Biswa Sharma, after Khera claimed at a press conference that she holds multiple foreign passports and has undisclosed overseas assets.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had rejected the extension of interim bail granted to Khera by the Telangana High Court and directed him to approach the competent court in Assam. However, he explained that his previous observations would not prejudice the trial court’s evaluation of his defense.
However, the top court had clarified its earlier order in which it had stayed the one-week interim bail granted to Khera by the Telangana High Court to the extent that it would not have any adverse impact on the trial court, which would decide on Khera’s plea.
Later, Khera approached the Gauhati High Court, where his plea for relief was rejected. He later moved to the Supreme Court challenging the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court heard the arguments of both parties and reserved its decision.
