Pawan Khera moves Supreme Court over anticipatory bail rejection by Gauhati High Court

Congress leader Pawan Khera has approached the Supreme Court of India challenging an April 24 order of the Gauhati High Court, which rejected his anticipatory bail plea in connection with the defamation and forgery case registered by the Assam Police.

The case stems from a First Information Report (FIR) filed by Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. The complaint was lodged after Khera, during a press conference, alleged that she possesses multiple foreign passports and holds undisclosed assets abroad.

Following the FIR, Khera sought anticipatory bail from the Gauhati High Court, which declined to grant relief. The High Court’s order has now been contested before the Supreme Court, where Khera has sought protection from arrest in the case.

Gauhati High Court on April 24 rejected the anticipatory bail plea filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with an FIR lodged by Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, over allegations relating to her purported possession of multiple passports.

A single-judge bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia delivered the order after reserving judgment on April 21 following extensive arguments from both sides. The detailed order is awaited.

Appearing for Khera, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the proceedings were politically motivated, referring to alleged statements made by the Chief Minister against Khera. He contended that the case reflected political vendetta, particularly in the context of upcoming elections.

Senior Counsel KN Choudhary supported these submissions, describing the allegations as “scandalous” and asserting that their tone and presentation indicated deliberate malice. The defence further argued that the matter, at most, constituted criminal defamation, which should be pursued through a private complaint.

Opposing the plea, Assam Advocate General Devajit Lon Saikia submitted that the case extended beyond defamation and involved serious allegations, including fabrication of documents and title deeds. He argued that the primary offences invoked relate to cheating and forgery.