Gauhati HC rejects Pawan Khera’s bail plea

The Gauhati High Court on Friday rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with his allegations that Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife possessed multiple passports and undisclosed properties abroad. The single bench of Justice Parthiv Jyoti Saikia rejected Khera’s application filed on Monday after the Congress leader was asked by the Supreme Court to approach the Gauhati High Court.

Rejecting Khera’s petition, the High Court pointed out that the petitioner had claimed that the accusations he had brought are based on certain documents, which he has in his possession, while the police claimed those documents were already proven to be false. After the case was filed, Chief Minister’s wife Riniki Bhyan Sharma, the petitioner, had not made any assertion that the police had made fabricated claims, the court said.

‘’The claim of the Advocate General that the case of the petitioner falls within the category of the possession of forged documents or electronic records (Section 339 of the BNS) seems to have force in it,’’ the judge said.

‘’If Khera had raised those accusations against the Chief Minister, the matter would have been a political rhetoric. But in order to gain political mileage, he has dragged an innocent lady into the controversy,” the order stated. He has not yet proved beyond doubt that Riniki Bhuyan Sharma has passports of three other countries, while 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 judge said.

The court said that it is of the opinion that under the given circumstances, this case cannot be termed as one of ‘defamation simpliciter’, a plain claim of defamation without any accompanying factors such as malice or conspiracy.

There are materials for a prima facie case under Section 339 of the BNS, which addresses the possession of forged documents or electronic records, it said, adding that the petitioner has been avoiding police investigation.

Custodial interrogation is necessary in this case to find out who his associates are, who had collected those documents for him and how and from where they had collected those documents, the court said. The judge also pointed out that there are no materials in the case to suggest that the accusations brought against the petitioner are intended to injure and humiliate him by having him arrested. The court held that the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

The high court had heard Khera’s petition, represented by Abhishek Manu Singhvi, on Tuesday and reserved its order. Assam Advocate General Devajit Saikia had opposed the bail petition.