Gauhati High Court: In an anticipatory bail application filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera, in connection with an FIR lodged by Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of the Chief Minister of Assam, alleging defamatory accusations based on purported documents, the Single Bench of Parthivjyoti Saikia, J., refused to grant anticipatory bail, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary in the case to find out who had collected those documents for Pawan Khera, and the manner and source of their procurement.
The Court stated 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 BNS, 2023 and the petitioner has been avoiding police investigation.”
Background
The applicant/petitioner, Pawan Khera, an Office-Bearer of the Indian National Congress, was attending a Press Conference at Guwahati, where he claimed that Smt. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of the Chief Minister of Assam, holds Passports of Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Antigua & Barbuda. He also claimed that Smt. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma founded a company in Wyoming, United States of America, and also invested more than Rs 50,000 crores. Mr Pawan Khera had shown some documents as proof, which he claimed were collected by his associates.
Aggrieved by the accusations, Smt. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma lodged an FIR, and a case was registered for offences under Sections 175, 3(5), 3(6), 318, 336(4), 337, 338, 340, 341(1), 351(1), 352, 353, 356 and 61(2), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). In her FIR, Smt. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma has claimed that she was an Indian citizen and that she neither held any passports of any other country nor floated the company in the USA.
Consequently, the applicant filed an application for anticipatory bail.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that Mr Khera had claimed that the accusations he had brought were based on certain documents. However, the police claimed that those documents had already been detected as false documents. The Court noted that the applicant had not challenged the claims of the police.
The Court noted that the applicant had neither proved beyond a doubt that Smt. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma had passports of 3 other countries, nor that she had opened a company in the United States of America and invested a huge amount of money. The Court stated that:
“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 observed that the applicant had allegedly based his accusations on certain documents which had been collected by his associates. The Court therefore opined that the present case was not a simpliciter defamation case, and that there were materials for a prima facie case under Section 339 BNS. Accordingly, the Court stated that custodial interrogation was necessary in this case to find out who had collected those documents for Mr Khera, and how and from where they had collected those documents.
The Court observed that the accusations against the applicant, Mr Pawan Khera, were not intended to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, and appear to stem from a motive of furthering the ends of justice.
Decision
The Court held that the applicant, Mr Pawan Khera, did not deserve to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, anticipatory bail was dismissed.
[Pawan Khera v. State of Assam, AB, 804 of 2026, ordered on 24-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the applicant: A.M. Singhvi and K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocates
For the respondent: D. Saikia, Senior Advocate and Advocate General, Assam
