The plea concerns an Assam Police FIR lodged on the complaint of Riniki Bhuyan Sarma over Pawan Khera’s allegation that she held multiple passports
Supreme Court Reserves Judgment
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved judgment on Congress leader Pawan Khera’s petition seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR registered by Assam Police.
Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, lodged the complaint. She objected to Khera’s allegation that she held multiple passports.
Bench Heard Challenge To Gauhati High Court Order
A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul Chandurkar heard Khera’s challenge to the Gauhati High Court order.
The High Court had rejected his anticipatory bail plea.
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Khera. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta represented the State of Assam.
Singhvi Calls Case “Unprecedented”
Dr Singhvi called the case “unprecedented”.
He referred to public statements allegedly made by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
He described the Chief Minister as the “boss of the boss of the boss of the Prosecutor”.
He also submitted that some remarks could not be read in open court as they contained “unprintable” words.
According to Singhvi, Sarma had threatened that Khera would spend the rest of his life in an Assam jail.
He argued, “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.”
Defence Says Arrest Is Unnecessary
Singhvi submitted that the core allegations relate to defamation and reputational harm.
He argued that the police did not need arrest or custodial interrogation.
“Let me assume I am convicted ultimately. But where is the necessity of arrest? What is there in the case which can be done without an arrest?” he submitted.
He added that the Court could impose safeguards to ensure Khera’s cooperation with the investigation.
He also said such safeguards could address any flight-risk concerns.
Objection Raised To Police Action
Singhvi questioned the need for custodial interrogation.
He asked, “Why is it necessary to humiliate with a custodial interrogation?”
He submitted that around 50 to 60 Assam police personnel reached Nizamuddin to arrest Khera, “as if he is a terrorist.”
He further argued that most offences in the FIR are bailable.
High Court’s Reference To Section 339 BNS Questioned
Singhvi also criticised the Gauhati High Court order for referring to Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Section 339 deals with possession of forged documents.
He argued that neither the complaint nor the FIR mentioned Section 339 BNS.
He also submitted that the provision is bailable.
However, Justice Maheshwari pointed out that Section 339 contains different grades of offences.
Some grades carry punishment of life imprisonment, while others carry imprisonment up to seven years.
High Court’s “Innocent Lady” Remark Challenged
Singhvi objected to the High Court describing Riniki Bhuyan Sarma as an “innocent lady”.
He argued that only a trial could lead to such a conclusion.
Therefore, he submitted that the High Court had prejudged the issue.
Article 21 Protection Invoked
Singhvi urged the Supreme Court to protect Khera’s personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
He submitted that Khera is not a “hardened criminal”.
He described him as an active politician facing a political response to political allegations.
Singhvi also referred to the Chief Minister’s comments as “venom spewing out”.
He argued that the surrounding circumstances justified grant of relief.
Assam Opposes Anticipatory Bail
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the plea on behalf of the State of Assam.
He took the Bench through the complaint.
He submitted that the allegations disclosed offences against Khera.
According to the SG, Khera had alleged that the Chief Minister’s wife possessed passports of three other countries.
He also said Khera had shown images of purported passports during a press conference.
State Says Documents Were Forged
The Solicitor General submitted that investigation revealed that the images shown by Khera were forged.
He further stated that Khera had displayed fake documents relating to a company registered in the United States.
According to the State, custodial interrogation is necessary.
The SG said investigators need to identify the alleged accomplices.
He also said the police must examine whether any foreign elements helped fabricate passports in the complainant’s name.
SG Says Case Is Not Simple Defamation
The Solicitor General submitted that the police could not disclose the full material at this stage.
He also argued that Khera had been “absconding” since registration of the FIR.
According to him, the matter is “not a simple defamation case”.
“As an investigating agency, I would like to know how you forged the documents? What was your intent? If you did not forge, who gave it to you? Who were the foreign elements who were interested in interfering with our elections? Custodial interrogation is qualitatively different from other forms of interrogation,” the SG submitted.
FIR Registered At Guwahati Crime Branch
The proceedings arise from an FIR lodged by Riniki Bhuyan Sarma at the Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station.
The complaint concerns Khera’s public allegations that Sarma held multiple foreign passports and had financial interests abroad.
BNS Provisions Invoked In FIR
The FIR invokes several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
These include Section 175, relating to false statement in connection with an election.
It also invokes Section 318 for cheating, Section 338 for forgery of valuable security or will, and Section 337 for forgery of public record.
Further, the FIR cites Section 340 for using a forged document as genuine.
It also invokes Section 352 for intentional insult to provoke breach of peace and Section 356 for defamation.
Earlier Transit Bail And Supreme Court Stay
Khera first approached the Telangana High Court.
On April 10, the Telangana High Court granted him one week’s transit anticipatory bail to approach the competent court in Assam.
However, on April 15, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the transit anticipatory bail.
At the same time, the Supreme Court clarified that the competent court in Assam should consider any anticipatory bail application independently.
Later, the Supreme Court declined Khera’s plea to vacate the stay.
It also refused his request to extend protection so that he could approach the Assam court.
Gauhati High Court Rejected Bail Plea
Khera then moved the Gauhati High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
The High Court rejected the plea.
It held that the case was not one of defamation simpliciter.
The High Court also held that custodial interrogation was necessary to determine the source of the documents relied upon by Khera.
It further observed that Khera had failed to substantiate his allegations about multiple passports and foreign investments.
The High Court also remarked that he had drawn a private individual into a political controversy.
