The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on a plea filed by INC leader Pawan Khera challenging the rejection of his anticipatory bail application by the Gauhati High Court in a case registered by the Assam Police for the offences of defamation, forgery and related charges. The case stems from statements made by Khera concerning the family of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, which led to the lodging of an FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings.

Background of the case

The case against INC leader Pawan Khera arises from an FIR registered by the Assam Police on a complaint filed by Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, wife of  Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. The FIR was triggered after Khera, during press conferences in April, alleged that Sharma possessed multiple foreign passports and held undisclosed foreign assets, including properties abroad. These claims were strongly denied by the Chief Minister and his wife.

Based on these allegations, the Assam Police registered a case invoking multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including offences relating to forgery, cheating, defamation, and use of forged documents, among others.

Afterwards, Pawan Khera initially sought transit anticipatory bail from the Telangana High Court, which granted him interim protection for a limited period to approach a competent court in Assam. However, this relief was later stayed by the Supreme Court, directing him to seek regular anticipatory bail before the appropriate jurisdictional court. Pawan Khera subsequently moved the Gauhati High Court seeking anticipatory bail, but the High Court rejected his plea.

Read at- Gauhati HC Rejects Pawan Khera’s Anticipatory Bail Plea in Case Filed by Assam CM’s Wife Over Passport Allegations

https://thebarbulletin.com/gauhati-hc-rejects-anticipatory-bail-passport-case/

Challenging this rejection, he approached the Supreme Court, arguing for protection from arrest, while the State has opposed the plea, contending that the case involves serious allegations beyond mere defamation, including suspected forgery and a larger conspiracy requiring custodial interrogation.

The Supreme Court has now reserved the Judgement in the case.