New Delhi: Noting that there was an exchange of politically motivated allegations and counter-allegations between Congress leader Pawan Khera and Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, the Supreme Court Thursday observed that the present situation did not warrant custodial interrogation of the Congress leader in a case registered against him by Sarma’s wife Rinku Bhuyan Sarma.
Granting anticipatory bail to Khera, a Bench led by Justice J. K. Maheshwari emphasised the importance of personal liberty that “cannot be put to jeopardy lightly”.
The Bench said: “In this context, the criminal process must be applied with objectivity and circumspection so as to ensure that individual liberty is not imperilled by proceedings that may be coloured by political rivalry.”
Since the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint against Khera can be tested during the trial, the court said, it ought to strike a “careful balance” between the state’s interest in ensuring a fair investigation and the individual’s fundamental right to personal liberty.
The court made the remarks while allowing Khera’s appeal against Guwahati High Court’s refusal to grant him anticipatory bail in a defamation and forgery case over his allegations that CM Sarma’s wife held multiple foreign passports.
Before the Supreme Court, Khera argued the case rested on documentary material, which was in possession of the police, and, therefore custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Opposing the plea, Assam had argued that the documents displayed during the press conference were found to be forged and that custodial interrogation was required to trace their origin and identify persons involved in their preparation.
Khera had made the claim during a press conference on 6 April in Guwahati, organised in the run-up to the assembly elections. Two of the three passports held by Sarma’s wife, he alleged, were from Muslim countries. Khera went on to accuse Sarma of indulging in hate politics, targeting Muslims.
The FIR registered against Khera accuses him of defamation and forgery. Assam police have claimed Khera had displayed fake passports with an intention to harm Sarma and his wife’s reputation.
However, the SC noted in its bail order that Khera levelled the allegations “merely to gain some political momentum in favour of his party”. It faulted the HC order for its observations, which, the SC said, were not based on correct appreciation of all the material placed on record.
The court also took note of “certain unparliamentary remarks” made by Sarma against Khera.
“We are further of the opinion that the allegations and counter-allegations, as apparent in the present case, 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 bench said.
To ensure that offences alleged in the FIR are investigated and completed with integrity and speed, the bench directed Khera to co-operate with the investigation and appear before the police station as and when required.
He was ordered not to tamper or influence evidence during the pendency of the investigation or trial. Khera was also restrained from leaving India without the permission of the competent court in Guwahati. The top court also gave liberty to the trial court (where the case would be heard eventually) to impose some other bail conditions, if needed, during the trial.
SC clarified its order on Khera’s plea for anticipatory bail was not a reflection on the merits of the criminal case against him. The decision arrived at was in reference to the documents provided to the court during the hearing of the bail petition. Hence, it clarified, the competent court in Guwahati shall not “be influenced by those observations and shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law”.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)