Congress leader Pawan Khera’s counsel had argued that he is not a flight risk and that his arrest is not necessary. (Source: File)
While rejecting Congress leader Pawan Khera’s anticipatory bail plea Friday, a Gauhati High Court bench stated that it is of the opinion “custodial interrogation is necessary in this case to find out who are the associates of Mr. Khera” who had collected the documents on the basis of which he had alleged that Riniki Bhuyan Sharma possesses passports of three other countries and assets in the UAE and the USA.
The Bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia had Friday rejected Khera’s anticipatory bail plea in connection with an FIR registered against him based on a complaint by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma.
On April 5, Khera alleged in a press conference that CM Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan, holds three passports. Khera also shared images of documents that allegedly showed properties in her name in the UAE and a company registered in the United States, which Khera claimed were not disclosed in Sarma’s election affidavit. Following this, Bhuyan filed a complaint against Khera, stating that the allegations are false and the documents he shared were forged.
An FIR was subsequently registered in which the charges include false statements in connection with an election, cheating, various charges related to forgery, criminal intimidation, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, statements could lead to breach of peace, defamation, and criminal conspiracy.
In its order, the court noted that the Khera’s counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi had argued that “whatever Mr Khera had done was nothing but political rhetoric aimed at the opposite party and at best, it might be a case of defamation” and that Chief Minister Sarma has been “publicly threatening” Khera after the incident, because of which “there is a possibility that he may suffer personal harassment if he is arrested by police”.
It also noted that Assam Advocate General Devajit Saikia argued that the police have already detected that the documents he based his claims on are false documents, because of which he is guilty of committing an offence under Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita – possessing a document knowing that it is forged but intending to presenting it as genuine.
The court noted that this claim of the Advocate General “seems to have force in it,” with the petitioner not making any claims that the police have fabricated claims that the documents are false after the case has been filed.
Story continues below this ad
“The husband of Smti. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma is in politics and is the Chief Minister of Assam. But Smti. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma is not in politics. If Mr. Khera had raised those accusations against the Chief Minister of the State, then the matter would have been a political rhetoric. But in order to gain political mileage, Mr. Khera has dragged an innocent lady into the controversy. He has not yet proved without doubt that Smti. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma has passports of three other countries. He has also not yet proved beyond doubt that she had opened a company in the United States of America and invested a huge amount of money,” the court has stated in its order.
It noted that while making his accusations, Khera had claimed that “his associates had collected those documents for him.”
“This court is of the opinion that under the given circumstances, this 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 and the petitioner has been avoiding police investigation. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is again of the opinion that custodial interrogation is necessary in this case to find out who are the associated of Mr. Khera, who had collected those documents for him and how and from where they had collected those documents,” it stated in the order.
Stating that “there are no materials in this case to suggest that the accusations brought against the present petitioners are intended to injure and humiliate the applicant/petitioner by having him arrested,” the court stated that it holds that Khera “does not deserve to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.”