The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on the anticipatory bail plea filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera in a case involving allegations of defamation and forgery registered by the Assam Police.
A bench of Justices J. K. Maheshwari and A. S. Chandurkar heard arguments from both sides before reserving judgment.
Khera alleges political targeting
Appearing for Khera, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that arrest was unnecessary and driven by political motives. He told the court that Khera’s statements were made in a political context and that the case was an attempt to humiliate him.
Singhvi stressed that Khera was not a flight risk and questioned the need for custodial interrogation. He also cited statements allegedly made by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma to argue that there was a real apprehension of arrest.
The defence further contended that anticipatory bail is a right, not a privilege, and accused the Gauhati High Court of misapplying the law while rejecting Khera’s plea.
Assam police press for custodial interrogation
Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that Khera had relied on forged documents, including alleged passports, to make false claims against the Chief Minister’s wife.
According to the prosecution, the documents were fabricated and their origin needed thorough investigation. The state argued that custodial interrogation was essential to uncover accomplices and examine whether foreign elements were involved.
The police also maintained that the case involved serious offences, including forgery of official documents and the possible misuse of sensitive identification materials.
High Court rejection and legal trail
Khera’s legal battle has moved across multiple courts. The Gauhati High Court had rejected his anticipatory bail plea on April 24, observing that custodial interrogation was necessary to identify those who supplied the documents.
Earlier, the Telangana High Court had granted him temporary relief, which was later stayed by the Supreme Court. The top court also declined to extend that protection, directing him to approach the Gauhati High Court instead.
Controversy over statements
The case stems from statements made by Khera at a press conference, where he alleged that the Chief Minister’s wife held multiple foreign passports and undisclosed overseas assets.
The High Court had noted that while criticism of a political leader might fall within political rhetoric, dragging a private individual into such allegations warranted closer scrutiny.
It also pointed to prima facie evidence suggesting offences under provisions relating to forged documents.
Verdict awaited
With both sides sharply divided on the necessity of arrest and the seriousness of the allegations, the Supreme Court has now reserved its verdict.
The ruling is expected to clarify the balance between personal liberty and the needs of the investigation in politically sensitive cases involving allegations of forgery and misinformation.
