The Supreme Court of India on Thursday witnessed a sharp exchange of arguments during the hearing of Congress leader Pawan Khera’s anticipatory bail plea, with both the defence and prosecution presenting strongly worded submissions in a politically sensitive case.
Heated Exchanges in Court
The proceedings centred on whether Khera should be granted protection from arrest in connection with allegations he made against the wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Khera, criticised remarks attributed to Sarma, describing them as reflective of “venom and malice” from a constitutional authority. In a sharply worded submission, he referred to the Chief Minister as a “constitutional cowboy,” arguing that such rhetoric underscored a misuse of power.
Singhvi emphasised that arrest should not be employed as a punitive tool. He contended that there was no necessity for custodial action unless it was intended to “humiliate or harass,” reiterating that arrest must remain a measure of last resort. Questioning the scale of police action, he described the deployment of a large police contingent as “excessive and disproportionate.”
Prosecution Pushes Back
Responding to the defence, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Khera had failed to cooperate with investigators and should be considered absconding.
He submitted that despite publicly denying any attempt to evade authorities, Khera had not complied with investigative procedures. The prosecution further asserted that the case involved serious allegations extending beyond defamation, including the use of allegedly forged documents.
Mehta told the court that certain passport copies in question were “fake, doctored, and fabricated,” and maintained that custodial interrogation was necessary to determine the origin of these documents and identify any possible collaborators.
Defence Questions Need for Custodial Action
Reiterating his stance, Singhvi argued that the charges largely pertain to bailable offences and do not justify arrest. He maintained that the matter should be adjudicated at trial and that interrogation could proceed without custodial detention.
He also stated that Khera had expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation and that anticipatory bail should not be denied on speculative grounds such as potential influence or flight risk.
Case Background
Khera approached the Supreme Court after the Gauhati High Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea on April 24.
The case stems from allegations made by Khera regarding the Chief Minister’s wife, including claims related to multiple passports and undisclosed foreign assets. Following these allegations, criminal cases were registered against him by the Guwahati Crime Branch under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Earlier, the Telangana High Court had granted Khera transit anticipatory bail, which was subsequently stayed by the Supreme Court, directing him to seek relief from the Gauhati High Court.
Verdict Reserved
After hearing detailed arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court bench reserved its judgment on Khera’s anticipatory bail plea, setting the stage for a closely watched ruling in a case that intersects law, politics, and questions of personal libert
.png)
The opinions posted here do not belong to 🔰www.indiansdaily.com. The author is solely responsible for the opinions.
As per the IT policy of the Central Government, insults against an individual, community, religion or country, defamatory and inflammatory remarks, obscene and vulgar language are punishable offenses. Legal action will be taken for such expressions of opinion.