Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera, who had been maintaining a low profile after the controversy involving Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and his wife, has moved the Supreme Court following the Gauhati High Court's rejection of his anticipatory bail plea in a defamation and forgery case registered by the Assam Police.
Background of the Case
The Gauhati High Court on April 24 dismissed Khera's anticipatory bail application in the case filed by the Crime Branch of Assam Police in Guwahati. The case was registered after Khera alleged at a press conference that the Chief Minister's wife, Riniki Bhuyan, held multiple foreign passports and undisclosed assets abroad.
Arguments in Court
During the previous hearing, Khera's legal team, led by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that he was not a flight risk and that his arrest was unnecessary, describing the case as politically motivated. The Assam government, represented by Advocate General Devajit Lon Saikia, opposed the relief, contending that the case involved serious offenses including cheating and forgery, not merely defamation. The court had reserved its order after extensive arguments from both sides.
Legal Proceedings Timeline
Earlier, the Telangana High Court had granted Khera a seven-day transit anticipatory bail, but the Assam Police challenged this in the Supreme Court. On April 17, the Supreme Court declined to extend the transit anticipatory bail protection, directing Khera to approach a competent court in Assam regarding the case linked to allegations against the Chief Minister's wife.
Supreme Court Hearing
During the Supreme Court proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Assam Police, raised questions about the maintainability of the plea before the Telangana High Court, highlighting what he termed a 'patent lack of territorial jurisdiction.' He submitted that the FIR was registered in Assam and that Khera had not explained why he could not seek anticipatory bail there. Mehta also pointed out that Khera had sought anticipatory bail in Telangana without clearly establishing his presence in the state, adding that 'merely having some property' cannot confer jurisdiction. He described the move as a 'complete abuse of process' and a case of 'forum choosing.'
Justice Dinesh Maheshwari noted during the hearing that Khera had cited his wife's residence in Hyderabad as a ground for seeking bail in Telangana. However, the Solicitor General countered that even Khera's Aadhaar records reflected a Delhi address, and that occasional travel or property ownership cannot justify jurisdiction, as reported by LiveLaw.
The Telangana High Court had earlier granted Khera limited transit anticipatory bail for one week, observing that his apprehension of arrest appeared 'reasonable and supported by material on record.' It imposed conditions including cooperation with the investigation and restraint from public statements that could prejudice the probe. The Assam government challenged this order, arguing that Khera had not demonstrated any compelling reason to bypass courts in Assam, where the case was registered.
