He Has Dragged Innocent Lady Into Controversy To Gain Political Mileage: Gauhati High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Plea Of Pawan Khera
|The court ruled that the custodial interrogation of Khera is necessary to investigate the alleged use of fabricated documents in levelling accusations against the wife of the Assam CM.
The Gauhati High Court has dismissed an application for pre-arrest bail filed by Congress Leader Pawan Khera in a case involving serious allegations against Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
The Court said that the accusations, which claimed Smti. Sarma held multiple international passports and invested ₹50,000 crores in a U.S. company, transcended mere "political rhetoric" and "defamation simpliciter."
The Court emphasized that because the police have flagged the supporting documents as fabricated, custodial interrogation is essential to uncover the source of these materials and identify the associates involved in their collection.
The Bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia observed, "The husband of Smti. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma is in politics and is the Chief Minister of Assam. But Smti. 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. He has not yet proved beyond doubt that Smti. 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...This Court is of the opinion that under the given circumstances, this case cannot be termed as a case of defamation simpliciter. There are materials for a prima facie case under Section 339 of the BNS, 2023 and the petitioner has been avoiding police investigation."
Senior Advocates A.M. Singhvi and K.N. Choudhury appeared for Pawan Khera, whereas Advocate General D. Saikia appeared for the State of Assam
The brief facts of the case were that Khera, who is an Office Bearer of the Indian National Congress, on 5th April, 2026, attended a Press Conference at Guwahati. In that Press Conference, by showing some documents, Khera claimed that Rinki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of the Chief Minister of Assam holds Passports of Egypt, United Arab Emirates and of Antigua & Barbuda. Shri Khera also claimed that Smti. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma floated a company at Wyoming in the United States of America and also invested more than ₹50,000 crores. In order to make those claims, Pawan Khera had shown different documents, which he claimed, that those documents were collected by his associates.
Aggrieved by the accusations, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma had immediately lodged an FIR before the police and past midnight, the police registered the case. In her FIR, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma has claimed that she is an Indian citizen and that she does not hold any passport of any other country nor has she floated the company in the United States of America.
Subsequently, a complaint was lodged before the Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station, which was registered as Case No.04 of 2026 for offences punishable under Sections 175, 3(5), 3(6), 318, 336(4), 337, 338, 340, 341(1), 351(1), 352, 353, 356, and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The Telangana High Court had originally granted Khera a one-week protection on April 10, citing Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court maintained that transit bail is a necessary tool to provide immediate protection, allowing an accused person enough time to approach the competent jurisdictional court—in this case, the Gauhati High Court. However, the State of Assam challenged this, asserting that Khera provided no valid reason for his inability to seek relief directly in Assam.
On April 15, the Supreme Court had stayed the Telangana High Court order that granted transit anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in a case involving an FIR registered by the Assam Police following allegations made by Khera against Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, wife of Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma, regarding the possession of multiple international passports.
Then, the Supreme Court, on April 17, had refused to extend the transit anticipatory bail of Khera, directing him instead to approach the Gauhati High Court immediately for legal recourse. Khera filed an application seeking transit bail till April 21. The Apex Court had disposed of the application following a heated exchange regarding the authenticity of documents—specifically an Aadhaar card—filed in the Telangana High Court to establish residency.
After which, Khera moved to the Gauhati High Court vide an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, whereby he prayed for pre-arrest bail in respect of the alleged offences.
Singhvi, who represented Khera, submitted that the Press Conference was held just before the Assembly Elections in Assam. Singhvi said that the husband of Riniki Bhuyan Sarma belongs to the Bharatiya Janata Party, and Pawan Khera belongs to the Indian National Congress. Singhvi said whatever Khera had done was nothing but a political rhetoric aimed at the opposite party, and at best, it might be a case of defamation.
He also submitted that after the said incident, the Chief Minister of Assam has been publicly threatening Khera, and therefore, there is a possibility that he may suffer personal harassment if he is arrested by the police.
The Court held, "In this case, the petitioner Shri Khera had claimed that the accusations he had brought are based on certain documents, which he has in his possession. On the other hand, police claimed that those documents are already detected to be false documents. After filing of the case by the informant, the petitioner has not made any claims that the police had made fabricated claims that his documents are false. Now, the claim of the learned Advocate General that the case of the petitioner falls within the category of Section 339 of the BNS, 2023, seems to have force in it."
It said, "For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is again of the opinion that custodial interrogation is necessary in this case to find out who are the associates of Mr. Khera, who had collected those documents for him and how and from where they had collected those documents...The accusations brought against the present petitioner appears to stem from motive of furthering the ends of justice. There are no materials in this case to suggest that the accusations brought against the present petitioner are intended to injure and humiliate the applicant/petitioner by having him arrested."
Accordingly, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Cause Title: Pawan Khera v. State of Assam [Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:5620]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocates A.M. Singhvi and K.N. Choudhury
Respondents: Advocate General D. Saikia