BREAKING | Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Pawan Khera In Assam Police FIR
The Court said that the allegations appear to be "politically motivated" which does not require a custodial interrogation.
The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with the FIR registered by Assam Police on the complaint by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, over Khera's allegation that she held multiple passports.
A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice AS Chandurkar had reserved the judgment yesterday on Khera's petition challenging the Gauhati High Court's dismissal of his anticipatory bail application.
In the judgment, which was released today morning, the Supreme Court observed that the observation made by the High Court "is not based on correct appreciation of all the material which has been placed on record and appears to be erroneous, in particular shifting the burden on the accused."
The Court also observed that the allegations and counter-allegations prima facie "appear to be politically motivated and seemingly influenced by such rivalry, rather than disclosing a situation warranting custodial interrogation, and the veracity of the allegations can be tested at trial."
"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 said.
The bench also observed that the High Court was wrong in making observations regarding the offence under Section 339 of the BNS, when the FIR did not contain any such allegations. The High Court could not have made such observations merely on the statement of the Advocate General, the Supreme Court said.
Granting him relief, the Supreme Court ordered that Khera be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in the case. He was directed to cooperate with the investigation, and appear before the investigating officer as and when required. He is also directed to not leave India without the prior leave of the Court. The regular conditions that he should not tamper with the evidence are also imposed.
In the judgment, the Court noted that allegations and counter-allegations have been made by Khera and the Chief Minister. The Court also recorded in the judgment that the Chief Minister of the State has made some "unparliamentary remarks" against Khera, threatening his arrest.
The Court said that, having regard to the overall circumstances, relief needs to be granted, so that the right to personal liberty is not put to jeopardy.
"At this stage, we are cognizant of the fact that personal liberty of an individual enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be put to jeopardy lightly. But at the same time, we are also of the view that for any offences as alleged in the FIR, the investigation should be completed with integrity and in full swing with co-operation of the Appellant," the Court stated.
"Having regard to the aforesaid considerations, we are of the opinion that while adjudicating an application for anticipatory bail, a careful balance must be struck between the State's interest in ensuring a fair investigation and the individual's fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the Court noted.
Background
The present proceedings arise out of an FIR lodged by Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, against Congress leader Pawan Khera at the Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station. The allegations relate to Khera's public claims that Sharma held multiple foreign passports and had financial interests abroad.
The FIR invokes multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Sections 175 (false statement in connection with an election), 318 (cheating), 338 (forgery of valuable security or will), 337 (forgery of public record), 340 (using forged document as genuine), 352 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace) and 356 (defamation).
Khera initially approached the Telangana High Court, which on April 10 granted him one week's transit anticipatory bail to enable him to seek regular relief before the competent court in Assam.
On April 15, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the transit anticipatory bail. At the same time, it clarified that if Khera were to apply for anticipatory bail before the court having jurisdiction in Assam, such application should be considered independently. The Supreme Court subsequently declined Khera's plea to vacate the stay as well as his request to extend the protection to facilitate his approach to the Assam court.
Following this, Khera moved the Gauhati High Court seeking anticipatory bail. The High Court rejected the plea, holding that the case was not one of defamation simpliciter and that custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain the source of the documents relied upon by Khera.
The High Court also observed that Khera had failed to substantiate his allegations regarding multiple passports and foreign investments and remarked that he had drawn a private individual into a political controversy.
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Khera.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appeared for the State.
Case : Pawan Khera v. State of Assam
Click here to read the judgment