The legal battle intensified after senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Khera, lamented the rejection by asking, "Am I a terrorist?" Singhvi argued that the Supreme Court’s previous Wednesday order—which stayed the Telangana High Court’s one-week anticipatory transit bail—had been issued ex-parte. In this latest hearing, Khera sought the withdrawal of that stay. This follows the April 10 decision by Justice K Sujana of the Telangana High Court, who cited Supreme Court rulings to grant Khera limited temporary protection despite the case originating in Assam. Justice Sujana had noted that Khera demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of arrest, particularly following search-and-seizure operations conducted by the Assam and Delhi Police at his Delhi residence. This relief was intended to allow Khera seven days to approach the competent court in Assam for regular anticipatory bail, but the Assam Police promptly approached the Supreme Court to challenge the decision.
The controversy stems from an April 4 press conference in which Khera alleged that the Assam Chief Minister's wife holds passports from three different countries and that Himanta Biswa Sarma is involved in illegal activities. Khera further claimed that Riniki Bhuyan Sharma owns undisclosed luxury properties in Dubai registered to a company in a United States state. These claims have been vehemently denied by the Sarma family, who termed the supporting documents as AI-generated fabrications circulated by Pakistani social media groups. Following these allegations, a formal complaint was lodged with the Guwahati Police. With the Supreme Court maintaining its stay and Singhvi confirming that the Guwahati High Court plea will be filed on Monday, the case underscores the high-stakes legal friction between political speech, allegations of digital fabrication, and the procedural rigors of transit bail.
About The Author
Comment List