Gauhati High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Plea of Congress Leader Pawan Khera

The Gauhati High Court on Friday dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by All India Congress Committee (AICC) Media and Publicity Chairperson Pawan Khera. The plea was connected to a First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Assam Police Crime Branch, based on a complaint by Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.

A single-judge bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia delivered the order after reserving the verdict on April 21 following detailed arguments from both sides. In its observations, the court noted that Khera had dragged an innocent lady into the controversy for political mileage and emphasised that this was not a case of defamation simpliciter. The bench highlighted the need for custodial interrogation to identify associates who may have provided the documents used in the allegations.

Pawan Khera | Times of India

Background of the Controversy

The case originated from a press conference addressed by Pawan Khera in early April 2026, shortly before the Assam Assembly elections. During the event, Khera claimed that Riniki Bhuyan Sharma held multiple foreign passports, including those from the UAE, Egypt, and Antigua and Barbuda. He also alleged that the Sarma family possessed undisclosed overseas assets, such as a limited liability company in the United States and properties in Dubai.

Riniki Bhuyan Sharma strongly denied these claims, describing the documents presented as fabricated, photoshopped, or AI-generated. She subsequently filed a complaint leading to the FIR, which invoked multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). These included sections related to false statements in connection with an election, cheating, forgery of documents and public records, using forged documents as genuine, intentional insult, and defamation.

Both Riniki Bhuyan Sharma and Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma have maintained that the allegations were baseless and aimed at causing reputational harm ahead of the polls.

Court Proceedings and Key Arguments

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Khera, argued that the case was politically motivated. He submitted that his client was not a flight risk and that the statements were made in the course of political discourse. The defence sought protection from arrest, contending that custodial interrogation was not necessary.

The Assam government, represented by Advocate General Devajit Lon Saikia, opposed the plea. The state emphasised the seriousness of the offences, particularly those involving forgery and the use of fabricated documents, which warranted a proper investigation.

Timeline of Legal Developments

The FIR was registered on April 6, 2026, following the press conference. Assam Police later visited Khera’s residence in Delhi, but he was not present. Khera had initially obtained interim transit anticipatory bail from the Telangana High Court. However, the Supreme Court stayed that order and directed him to approach the Gauhati High Court, citing jurisdictional issues and other concerns. After hearings on April 21, the Gauhati High Court delivered its rejection on April 24.

The MGMM Outlook

The rejection of anticipatory bail by the Gauhati High Court underscores a strong judicial position on maintaining accountability in politically charged situations, particularly when allegations involve private individuals. By noting that Pawan Khera had brought an “innocent lady” into the controversy, the court signaled that political discourse must remain grounded in responsibility and verifiable claims. The stress on custodial interrogation also reflects the seriousness attached to cases involving alleged forgery and the circulation of questionable documents, especially during sensitive electoral periods.

The developments also highlight how political narratives are increasingly intersecting with legal scrutiny, where claims made in the public domain are subject to institutional checks. The firm response from Riniki Bhuyan Sharma and Himanta Biswa Sarma demonstrates a clear pushback against allegations considered baseless, reinforcing that reputational harm cannot be taken lightly. Overall, the episode reflects a broader shift where the boundaries of political engagement are being more clearly defined by legal standards, ensuring that public debate does not drift into unverified or potentially damaging assertions.

(Sources: OpIndia, Times of India, Hindustan Times)