The FIR stems from Khera's allegations that Sharma held multiple foreign passports and undisclosed overseas assets. During the previous hearing, Khera's counsel, led by Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that he was not a flight risk and that arrest was unnecessary, describing the case as politically motivated. The defence maintained that custodial interrogation was unwarranted and that the charges lacked substantive grounds.
Opposing the plea, the Assam government, represented by Advocate General Devajit Lon Saikia, asserted that the matter involved serious offences including cheating and forgery, and not merely defamation. The prosecution emphasized the gravity of the allegations and sought denial of pre-arrest protection, citing the need for a thorough investigation.
The court had earlier reserved its order after extensive arguments from both sides before delivering its decision to reject the anticipatory bail plea. Meanwhile, the Telangana High Court had earlier granted Khera a seven-day transit anticipatory bail, a move that prompted the Assam Police to approach the Supreme Court challenging the relief.
The rejection of anticipatory bail by the Gauhati High Court marks a significant development in the case, underscoring the legal scrutiny surrounding the allegations and setting the stage for further proceedings as the matter continues to unfold across multiple judicial forums.
About The Author
Comment List