The Gauhati High Court on Friday rejected the anticipatory bail plea of 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. The court held that the case involved serious allegations requiring custodial interrogation.
A single-judge bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia, which had reserved its verdict earlier this week, ruled that Khera “does not deserve to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail” and denied him pre-arrest protection. The court observed that the matter could not be treated as mere defamation and found prima facie material indicating cognisable offences under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including Section 339.
The case stems from statements made by Khera during a press conference in Guwahati on April 5, where he alleged that Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the Chief Minister’s wife, possessed multiple foreign passports and had financial dealings abroad. Denying the claims, Riniki Sarma filed an FIR asserting that she is solely an Indian citizen.
During the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Khera, argued that the remarks were part of political discourse and, at most, amounted to defamation. He also raised concerns of political vendetta and possible harassment if Khera were arrested. Another counsel, K.N. Choudhury, contended that several invoked offences were non-cognisable.
Opposing the plea, Assam Advocate General Devajit Lon Saikia argued that the allegations were based on documents found to be false, attracting serious penal provisions beyond defamation.
In its order, the High Court stressed the need for custodial interrogation to ascertain the origin and authenticity of the documents cited by Khera and to identify any associates involved. It also rejected the claim of political motivation, stating that the proceedings appeared aimed at furthering justice.
Drawing a distinction between political criticism and targeting private individuals, the court noted that dragging a non-political figure into controversy for political mileage was unjustified. It concluded that given the gravity of the case, Khera was not entitled to anticipatory bail.
