Congress leader Pawan Khera has approached the Supreme Court against the Gauhati High Court order rejecting his anticipatory bail plea in a defamation and forgery case registered against him by the Assam Police.
The Gauhati High Court had on April 24 rejected Khera's plea for anticipatory bail in the case registered against him by the Crime Branch of Assam Police in Guwahati.
The case alleging defamation, forgery and criminal conspiracy was registered against Khera following his recent claims at a press conference that Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife Riniki Bhuyan holds multiple foreign passports and undisclosed assets abroad.
Assam Police had visited Khera’s residence in Delhi on April 7 but he was not present there.
Khera later approached the Telangana High Court seeking transit anticipatory bail.
The Telangana High Court granted him a week's relief on April 10 to enable him approach the courts in Assam for anticipatory bail.
On April 15, the Supreme Court stayed Telangana High Court's April 10 order on an appeal moved by Assam government.
Subsequently, on April 17, the top court refused to extend the transit bail period. It asked Khera to approach the Gauhati High Court instead.
Khera then moved the Gauhati High Court.
In his petition before the Gauhati High Court, Khera argued that the allegations against him arise out of statements made in a public and political context during a press conference. He said that the same were "selectively construed" to initiate the criminal proceedings.
Khera added that the FIR was registered to "satisfy ulterior motive/political vendetta of the complainant", who is the wife of the Assam Chief Minister.
On April 24, the High Court rejected his plea.
The High Court said that custodial interrogation of Khera was necessary to find the persons who had provided him the documents he used to claim that Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife holds three foreign passports and a company in the United States.
The Court observed that if Khera had made the allegations only against the Chief Minister, it would have been called political rhetoric but he dragged an innocent lady into the controversy.
The Court said that it was not a simple case of defamation, adding that Khera was yet to prove his claims.
The Court added that Khera was avoiding police investigation, with material on record prima facie suggesting commission of an offence under Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which relates to possession of forged documents.