The Supreme Court on April 30 granted anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with a defamation and forgery case filed by the Assam Police.
A bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar overturned the Gauhati High Court’s earlier decision that had denied him the relief. The Court noted that the facts of the case suggested a backdrop of political rivalry, making it appropriate to safeguard Khera’s personal liberty.
“The allegations and counter-allegations, as apparent in the present case, prima facie, appear to be politically motivated and seemingly influenced by such rivalry, rather than disclosing a situation warranting custodial interrogation,” the Court observed.
The case stems from statements made by Khera at a press conference, where he alleged that Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan, possessed multiple foreign passports and undisclosed overseas assets. Following these claims, an FIR was registered against him for defamation, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.
On April 7, Assam Police visited Khera’s residence in Delhi, but he was not present. He subsequently approached the Telangana High Court, which granted him interim protection for one week on April 10 to seek relief from courts in Assam.
However, on April 15, the Supreme Court stayed the Telangana High Court’s order after an appeal by the Assam government. Two days later, on April 17, the Court declined to extend the transit bail and directed Khera to move the Gauhati High Court.
Khera then approached the Gauhati High Court, arguing that his statements were made in a public and political setting during a press conference and had been selectively interpreted to initiate criminal proceedings. He also contended that the FIR was driven by “ulterior motive/political vendetta” on the part of the complainant.
On April 24, the High Court rejected his plea, stating that custodial interrogation was necessary to identify the sources of the documents used by Khera to support his allegations. It further remarked that while criticism directed solely at the Chief Minister might fall within political discourse, dragging his wife into the matter went beyond such bounds. The High Court also observed that the case involved more than mere defamation and that Khera had not yet substantiated his claims.
Challenging this order, Khera moved the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing him, argued that the case was based largely on documentary evidence already with the authorities, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. He also maintained that the statements were part of political campaigning and did not justify arrest.
Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Assam government, submitted that the documents shown at the press conference were forged and that custodial interrogation was required to trace their origin and identify those involved.
After reviewing the record, the Supreme Court noted that the events occurred during an election period and involved competing claims between political figures. It also took into account that public statements had been made by Chief Minister Sarma regarding Khera, indicating a broader political context.
Highlighting the significance of personal liberty, the bench emphasised that any restriction on it must meet a higher standard, particularly in cases with political undertones.
“The right to personal liberty is a cherished fundamental right, and any deprivation thereof must be justified on a higher threshold, particularly where the surrounding circumstances may indicate the presence of political overtones,” the Court said.
The Court allowed Khera’s appeal and directed that he be granted anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, subject to conditions such as cooperating with the investigation, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving India without prior permission from the competent court.
It clarified that its observations were confined to the issue of anticipatory bail and would not influence the merits of the ongoing criminal proceedings, which are to be decided independently in accordance with the law.
Picture Source :
