Passport controversy: Congress spokesperson Pawan Kheda reached Supreme Court for anticipatory bail, got a blow from Guwahati High Court

New Delhi, 26 April. Congress spokesperson Pawan Kheda, badly trapped by the controversial statement given regarding the passport related to Rinki Bhuyan, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, has applied in the Supreme Court for anticipatory bail in the case of defamation and forgery.

Pawan Khera has moved the Supreme Court after his anticipatory bail plea was rejected by the Gauhati High Court. Assam Police had registered this case against him. The Gauhati High Court had on April 24 rejected Kheda’s anticipatory bail plea in the case registered against him by the Assam Police Crime Branch in Guwahati.

Serious allegations were made against Rinki Bhuiyan regarding passport.

In fact, Kheda had claimed during a press conference in the election environment of Assam Assembly that Assam Chief Minister’s wife Rinki Bhuyan has several foreign passports and undeclared properties abroad. Only after this a case was registered against Pawan Kheda.

Advocate General made serious allegations against Pawan Kheda

During the last hearing, Kheda’s counsel led by Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that there is no flight risk from him and the arrest is unnecessary. He also called this matter politically motivated.

Advocate General Devjit Lone Saikia, representing the Assam government, opposed the relief to Kheda, arguing that the case was not just one of defamation but related to serious crimes including cheating and forgery. After detailed arguments from both sides, the court had earlier reserved its decision.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s argument in the Supreme Court

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Assam Police, questioned the validity of the petition filed in the Telangana High Court, calling it a clear lack of territorial jurisdiction. He said the FIR was lodged in Assam and Khera did not explain why he could not seek anticipatory bail there.

Mehta also pointed out that Khera had sought anticipatory bail in Telangana even though he had not clearly proved his presence in the state. He said that mere possession of some property does not confer jurisdiction. He told the bench that this was a complete abuse of process and a matter of choosing the court.

Telangana High Court had given relief, Assam government had challenged the order

It is noteworthy that Telangana High Court had earlier granted limited transit anticipatory bail to Kheda for one week. The Court found that the apprehension of his arrest appeared to be ‘reasonable and supported by the evidence on record’. The High Court also imposed conditions like cooperating in the investigation and refraining from making public statements that could influence the investigation. The Assam government then challenged this order, arguing that Kheda had not given any solid reason for bypassing the courts of Assam, where the case was registered.