Senior Congress leader Ripun Bora has accused Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of turning the police case against Pawan Khera into a personal vendetta, intensifying a political confrontation after the Congress national spokesperson appeared before the Crime Branch at Pan Bazar Police Station in Guwahati for questioning on May 13.
Khera’s appearance before investigators followed directions linked to the anticipatory bail granted to him by the Supreme Court on April 30 in Crime Branch Police Station Case No. 04/2026. The case arose from allegations he made during the Assam Assembly election campaign about Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the Chief Minister’s wife, including claims relating to foreign passports, overseas assets and corporate interests. She has denied the allegations, calling the documents false and fabricated.
Bora, who reached the Crime Branch office while Khera was being questioned, said the Congress leader had acted as a law-abiding citizen by travelling to Guwahati and joining the investigation. He accused the Chief Minister of treating the matter as a personal prestige issue and said the police process should remain bound by the Supreme Court’s order and constitutional safeguards.
Khera was questioned for more than 10 hours on May 13 and was asked to appear again before the Crime Branch the following morning. He told reporters after the questioning that he had cooperated with investigators and would return as directed. His legal team maintained that he was protected from arrest under the Supreme Court’s order, while the investigation could continue.
Sarma, speaking after the first cabinet meeting of his second consecutive term, said the law would take its own course and that the progress of the case would depend on Khera’s cooperation. He said investigators were examining the documents displayed by Khera and suggested that authorities had received confirmation that the material was not genuine. The Chief Minister said police would seek answers from Khera and complete the investigation as quickly as possible.
The FIR includes allegations of defamation, forgery, use of forged documents as genuine, cheating, criminal conspiracy, intentional insult and false statements linked to elections under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The dispute began during the campaign period when Khera held press conferences raising questions about alleged undisclosed assets and documents connected to the Chief Minister’s wife. The complainant rejected the claims and said the material had been created using forged seals and QR codes.
The legal timeline has been unusually compressed. A complaint was lodged in Guwahati on April 6. Khera secured interim transit protection from the Telangana High Court on April 10. The Supreme Court on April 17 directed him to approach the competent court in Assam. The Gauhati High Court rejected his pre-arrest bail plea on April 24, after which the Supreme Court granted him anticipatory bail on April 30 with conditions requiring cooperation with the investigation.
The Supreme Court, while granting relief, said the criminal process must be applied with objectivity and care where proceedings may be coloured by political rivalry. It noted the State’s interest in a fair investigation but also underlined the constitutional protection of personal liberty. The court observed that the allegations and counter-allegations appeared, at the bail stage, to carry political overtones and did not justify custodial interrogation. It also clarified that its observations were limited to the bail question and should not influence the trial court’s assessment of the merits.
The order placed restrictions on Khera, including a requirement to appear before police when summoned, cooperate with the investigation, avoid tampering with evidence and not leave the country without permission from the competent court. These conditions have formed the basis of his appearance before the Guwahati Crime Branch.
The case has drawn wider political attention because it sits at the intersection of election speech, personal reputation, alleged forged documents and the power of state police machinery. Congress leaders argue that the prosecution reflects selective use of criminal law against opposition voices during a charged campaign. The ruling side maintains that the circulation of allegedly forged documents involving a private citizen cannot be shielded merely because it occurred in a political setting.
