New Delhi: The Gauhati High Court on Friday rejected an anticipatory bail plea filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with an FIR lodged in Assam over his alleged remarks against the wife of Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
A single-judge bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia, which had reserved its judgment on Tuesday after hearing extensive arguments from both sides, held that Khera “does not deserve to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail” and rejected his plea for pre-arrest protection.
The Gauhati High Court held that the case could not be treated as one of “defamation simpliciter” and found prima facie material suggesting the commission of cognisable offences, including under Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
“The case cannot be termed as a case of defamation simpliciter. There are materials for a prima facie case under Section 339 of the BNS, 2023,” Justice Saikia said, while rejecting Khera’s anticipatory bail plea.
The case arises out of allegations made by Khera during a press conference in Guwahati on April 5, where he claimed that Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of Himanta Biswa Sarma, held multiple foreign passports and had financial dealings abroad.
Following the remarks, Riniki Sarma filed an FIR denying the allegations and asserting that she is solely an Indian citizen.
Appearing for Khera, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that the statements were part of “political rhetoric” made in the context of electoral discourse and, at best, could amount to defamation.
Alleging political vendetta, Manu Singhvi also contended that there was apprehension of harassment if Khera was arrested.
Supporting the submissions, senior advocate K.N. Choudhury said that most of the invoked offences were non-cognisable and that even the Chief Judicial Magistrate had declined to issue a non-bailable warrant.
Opposing the plea, Assam Advocate General Devajit Lon Saikia submitted that the allegations were backed by documents that have been found to be “false”, attracting serious offences beyond mere defamation, including provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
In its order, the Gauhati High Court also underlined the necessity of custodial interrogation, saying that it was required to ascertain the source and authenticity of the documents relied upon by the Congress leader.
“This Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation is necessary… to find out who are the associates of Mr. Khera, who had collected those documents for him and how and from where they had collected those documents,” the High Court order said.
Rejecting the argument that the case was politically motivated, the High Court order said that the accusations “appear to stem from motive of furthering the ends of justice” and that there was no material to suggest that the proceedings were intended to “injure and humiliate” the petitioner.
The Gauhati High Court also drew a distinction between political criticism and dragging a private individual into controversy, saying that while the Chief Minister is a political figure, his wife is not.
“In order to gain political mileage, Mr. Khera has dragged an innocent lady into the controversy,” the court order said, adding that the allegations had not been substantiated “beyond doubt”.
The Gauhati High Court concluded that, given the seriousness of the allegations and the material on record, custodial interrogation was warranted and Khera was not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Khera had approached the Gauhati High Court after the Supreme Court declined to extend his interim protection from arrest and asked him to seek relief before the competent court in Assam.
(IANS)
