The Telangana High Court has reserved its order on Congress leader Pawan Khera’s plea for transit anticipatory bail, following an intense hearing marked by sharp exchanges over allegations of political vendetta, jurisdictional issues, and the scope of criminal charges.
The case stems from an FIR registered by Assam Police in Guwahati after Khera’s remarks at a press conference on April 5, where he alleged that Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, possessed multiple passports and undisclosed foreign assets. These claims were strongly denied by the family, who termed them false and malicious.
Seeking protection from arrest, Khera approached the Telangana High Court, citing his residence in Hyderabad and personal connections to the state. His counsel, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that the case was politically motivated and that the charges invoked went far beyond the nature of the allegations, which he described as a press statement. He questioned the necessity of arrest and criticised the scale of police action, including the deployment of a large team to locate Khera, calling it excessive and indicative of harassment.
Singhvi further maintained that Khera is a public figure with no criminal background, not a flight risk, and fully willing to cooperate with the investigation. He also raised concerns about the timing of the FIR and remarks made by political leaders, suggesting a pattern of mala fide intent.
Opposing the plea, Assam’s Advocate General Devajit Saikia rejected the claims of political targeting and argued that the case involved serious allegations beyond mere defamation, including forgery and misleading conduct. He questioned why Khera approached the Telangana High Court instead of courts in Assam or Delhi, stating that transit anticipatory bail across jurisdictions should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, which were not demonstrated in this case.
Saikia also argued that Khera’s actions indicated an attempt to evade the investigation, asserting that he had not presented sufficient grounds to justify relief from a court outside the state where the case was registered.
After hearing detailed arguments from both sides, Justice K Sujana reserved the order, leaving the immediate question of Khera’s protection from arrest pending. The case highlights broader tensions around political speech, legal process, and the use of criminal law in politically sensitive disputes.
