The Supreme Court on Monday granted anticipatory bail to Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera, who was facing arrest by Assam police after an FIR was lodged by the wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. The court observed that the allegations and counter-allegations between Khera and Sarma's wife appeared to be politically motivated rather than warranting custodial interrogation.
Court's Observations on Political Overtones
A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar held that the right to personal liberty is a cherished fundamental right, and any deprivation thereof must be justified on a higher threshold, particularly where the surrounding circumstances may indicate the presence of political overtones. The court noted that the verbal duel between Khera and Sarma during the surcharged build-up to the recent elections had led to the legal confrontation.
The Supreme Court said it cannot lose sight of the unparliamentary remarks made by the Assam Chief Minister against Khera in various press statements. The court recorded these statements in its order, highlighting the political context of the case.
Background of the Case
In a high-wattage press conference, Khera had accused Rinki Sarma, the wife of Himanta Biswa Sarma, of having obtained citizenship of other countries and owning companies overseas. However, Rinki and her spouse dubbed the documents Khera had brandished as crude forgeries and registered an FIR against him, accusing him of forgery among other things.
Khera immediately left Guwahati and secured transit anticipatory bail from the Telangana High Court. The Assam government then moved the Supreme Court, arguing that Khera had misled the Telangana High Court to secure the breather. The apex court agreed and asked the Congressman to seek relief from the Gauhati High Court. Khera moved the Supreme Court after the Gauhati High Court did not grant him anticipatory bail.
Conditions Imposed by the Court
While granting anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court barred Khera from leaving the country without the court's approval. It also directed him to cooperate in the investigation and to appear before the police station as and when required and intimated.
The court noted that as per the prosecution, the passports purported to belong to the Chief Minister's wife which were displayed by Khera are fake, and it was done to defame her and cause harm to their reputation. However, the court observed that it primarily appears that merely to gain some political momentum in favour of his party, this statement was made by the appellant.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Khera, highlighted various statements made by Assam CM to convince the court that the state government was determined to arrest him at any cost. The court recorded these statements in its order, weighing the balance of justice in favour of the Congress spokesperson.
