Custodial interrogation of Pawan Khera necessary, he dragged innocent lady into controversy: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court on Friday said that custodial interrogation of Congress leader Pawan Khera is necessary to find the persons who had provided him false documents to claim that Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife has three foreign passports and a company in the United States.

Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia made the observation in the order denying anticipatory bail to Khera in the case recently registered against him by the Crime Branch of Assam Police in Guwahati.

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 husband of Smt. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma is in politics and is the Chief Minister of Assam. But Smt. 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," the Court said.

The Court said that it was not a simple case of defamation, adding that Khera was yet to prove his claims.

"He has not yet proved beyond doubt that Smt. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma has passports of three other countries. He also has not yet proved beyond doubt that she had opened a company in the United States of America and invested a huge amount of money."

A criminal case alleging defamation, forgery and criminal conspiracy was recently registered against Khera.

The case was registered following his recent claims that Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife Riniki Bhuyan holds multiple foreign passports and undisclosed assets abroad.

Taking note of Khera's claim that the documents were provided to him by his associates, the Court today said that his custodial interrogation was necessary "to find out who are the associates... who had collected those documents for him and from where they had collected those documents.

The Court added that Khera was avoiding police investigation in the case with material on record prima facie suggesting commission of an offence under Section 339 (possession of forged documents) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

"Under the aforesaid premised reasons, this Court holds that the petitioner Shri Pawan Khera does not deserve to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected," the Court said.

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.

Khera then filed an application challenging the Supreme Court's ex-parte stay on the High Court's transit anticipatory bail order. However, the top court last week declined to vacate the stay and also 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.

"The petitioner, being a prominent political figure and spokesperson, has been targeted for statements made in discharge of his public duties, and the impugned F.I.R. constitutes an abuse of the process of law, aimed at harassment and intimidation and in furtherance of such ulterior motives, particularly at the instance of the complainant, who is closely connected t o the incumbent Chief Minister of the State of Assam," the plea said.

Khera also claimed that he had raised the allegations in an "interrogatory form" and thus could not have any role in the manufacturing of any fraudulent passports or property documents.

Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kamal Nayan Choudhury along with advocates Shariq Ahmed Abbasi, Aman Wadud and Aminur Rahman appeared for Khera.

Advocate General D Saikia represented the State of Assam.