Gaurav Gogoi targets Himanta Biswa Sarma over Pawan Khera's SC bail plea
Gogoi alleged that the Chief Ministerโ€™s reaction reflected โ€œguilt and panicโ€ and accused his government of corruption and intimidation.

Reported by NE NOW NEWS

Guwahati: Assam Pradesh Congress Committee (APCC) chief Gaurav Gogoi on Friday cited recent Supreme Court observations in the anticipatory bail case involving Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera and targeted Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.

In a post on X, Gogoi alleged that the Chief Ministerโ€™s reaction reflected โ€œguilt and panicโ€ and accused his government of corruption and intimidation.

The remarks came after the Supreme Court criticised certain observations made by the Gauhati High Court while rejecting Kheraโ€™s anticipatory bail plea in a case linked to his remarks against Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, wife of the Assam Chief Minister.

A bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar observed that the High Courtโ€™s findings appeared โ€œerroneousโ€ and were not based on proper appreciation of the material placed on record.

The apex court further noted that the allegations and counter-allegations in the matter appeared โ€œprima facie politically motivatedโ€ and stemmed from political rivalry rather than circumstances warranting custodial interrogation.

Allowing Kheraโ€™s appeal, the Supreme Court directed that he be granted anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, subject to conditions imposed by the investigating officer.

The court also observed that the High Court had incorrectly shifted the burden onto the accused and made unnecessary references to provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita that were not part of the FIR.

The case arose from Passport and offshore property allegations made by Khera against Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, following which the Assam Police registered an FIR. The Gauhati High Court had earlier rejected his anticipatory bail plea on April 24.

The Supreme Court directed Khera to cooperate with the investigation, refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and not leave the country without prior permission from the competent court.

The bench clarified that its observations were confined to the bail proceedings and would not affect the merits of the ongoing investigation or trial.