LegalCase – Pawan Khera Moves Supreme Court Over Bail Rejection
LegalCase – Congress leader Pawan Khera has approached the Supreme Court after the Gauhati High Court declined his request for anticipatory bail in a case linked to an FIR filed by Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, the wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. The development marks the latest turn in a legal and political controversy that has drawn national attention.
Petition Filed After High Court Relief Denied
Khera’s plea was submitted before the apex court on Sunday evening through his counsel, Priyansha Sharma. According to court records, the matter has not yet been scheduled for hearing. His legal team is expected to seek an urgent listing before a bench led by the Chief Justice, with senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi likely to mention the case.
The move comes shortly after the Gauhati High Court rejected Khera’s anticipatory bail application on April 24. The case was registered by the Crime Branch of the Assam Police in Guwahati following a complaint lodged by Riniki Bhuyan Sharma.
Allegations and FIR Details
The FIR accuses Khera of defamation, forgery, and criminal conspiracy under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint stems from remarks he made during a press briefing, where he alleged that Sharma possessed multiple foreign passports and had undisclosed business interests in the United States.
These claims were strongly denied by both the Chief Minister and his wife, who described them as baseless and fabricated. The complaint argues that the statements were damaging and made without credible evidence.
Police Action and Initial Legal Steps
After the FIR was registered, Assam Police officials visited Khera’s residence in Delhi on April 7. However, he was not present at the time. Anticipating possible arrest, Khera first approached the Telangana High Court seeking transit anticipatory bail.
On April 10, the Telangana High Court granted him interim protection for a week, allowing him time to seek relief from the appropriate court in Assam. However, this relief was short-lived.
Supreme Court Proceedings and Directions
The matter soon reached the Supreme Court when the Assam government challenged the Telangana High Court’s order. On April 15, the apex court stayed the interim protection granted earlier. Subsequently, on April 17, it declined to extend the transit bail and directed Khera to approach the Gauhati High Court for relief.
Following this direction, Khera filed for anticipatory bail in the Gauhati High Court, which ultimately rejected his plea.
High Court Observations on the Case
While denying bail, the Gauhati High Court noted that custodial interrogation might be necessary to determine the origin of the documents cited by Khera in support of his allegations. The court observed that the nature of the claims required further investigation.
It also made a distinction regarding the seriousness of the matter. The court stated that if the allegations had been limited to political criticism of the Chief Minister, they might have been viewed differently. However, involving a private individual elevated the gravity of the case beyond routine political discourse.
Khera’s Stand on the Allegations
Khera has maintained that the case against him is politically motivated. He argued that the FIR was filed with an ulterior intention and described it as an act of political vendetta. According to his defense, his statements were made in the context of public interest and accountability.
Background of the Controversy
The controversy began with a press conference held on April 5, during which Khera alleged that Riniki Bhuyan Sharma held three foreign passports and owned overseas assets that were not disclosed in official election documents related to the April 9 Assembly polls.
These claims triggered a strong response from the Chief Minister and his wife, leading to the filing of the FIR and subsequent legal proceedings.
As the matter now reaches the Supreme Court, the focus will be on whether Khera is granted relief from arrest and how the court interprets the balance between political speech and legal accountability.