New Delhi, May 1: The Supreme Court of India on Friday granted anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera in a defamation and forgery case registered by Assam Police following a complaint filed by Riniki Bhuyan Sarma.
 |
| Congress Leader Pawan Khera. (File Photo) |
The case stems from allegations made by Khera during a press conference claiming that Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife held multiple foreign passports and undisclosed assets abroad.
A bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice A.S. Chandurkar set aside the earlier order of the Gauhati High Court, which had rejected Khera’s anticipatory bail plea.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s conclusions were not based on a correct appreciation of the material placed on record and appeared to shift the burden of proof onto the accused. The bench further noted that the allegations and counter-allegations in the case prima facie appeared to be politically motivated and influenced by political rivalry, rather than indicating circumstances that required custodial interrogation.
ALSO READ: Court Rejects Bail Plea of Shyamkanu Mahanta in Zubeen Garg Death Case
The FIR accusing Khera of defamation, forgery and criminal conspiracy was registered after his statements about Riniki Bhuyan Sarma during a press briefing.
Following the case, Assam Police had visited Khera’s residence in Delhi on April 7, though he was not present at the time. Khera subsequently sought transit anticipatory bail from the Telangana High Court, which granted him temporary protection on April 10 to approach the appropriate court in Assam.
Later, the Supreme Court stayed the Telangana High Court’s order on April 15 following an appeal by the Assam government and directed Khera to move the Gauhati High Court. On April 24, the Gauhati High Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea, stating that custodial interrogation was necessary to determine the source of the documents used to make the allegations.
Khera then challenged the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court. Granting anticipatory bail, the apex court said the authenticity of the allegations could be examined during the trial and that the circumstances did not justify custodial interrogation at this stage.
