ISLAMABAD: On Wednesday, an anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Islamabad denied Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s bail in a case registered against the former prime minister for protesting outside the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
Before, the court had told the leader of the PTI to show up by 1:30 p.m. and turned down his request to not have to show up in person.
Following the ECP’s announcement of the Toshakhana verdict, which sparked nationwide protests, the PTI’s founder was indicted in October of last year.
Khan had been on medical bail since November 3, when he was wounded in an assassination attempt during a rally in Wazirabad.
Judge Raja Jawad Abbas Hassan of the anti-terrorism court made the announcement after waiting more than an hour for the PTI leader, who was out on bail. The former prime minister could go to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to fight the order so that he doesn’t have to go to jail.
During today’s hearing, Khan’s lawyer, Babar Awan, brought up the fact that the additional sessions judge had given interim bail to the PTI chief until February 27.
Awan requested that the judge to extend Khan’s bail, adding that Khan attempted to travel but was unable to.
“Imran Khan neither attempted to flee the country nor the court,” stated Khan’s attorney.
The judge stated that other defendants should be granted relief if Khan is granted relief for a bullet wound.
Awan then suggested that the court grant his client a final opportunity. “I am willing to submit a Rs. 10,000 surety bond,” he added.
The attorney requested permission to withdraw the bail plea.
The ATC judge said that the court will make a decision if the bail petition is not dropped.
The banking court has stayed the verdict on the bail application.
In the meantime, the IHC has told the banking court to wait until February 22 to decide on Imran Khan’s bail application.
The court had ordered Khan to appear in the prohibited funding case by 3:30 p.m. today, upon the expiration of his bail, but the former prime minister challenged the order in the high court.
A two-member bench comprised of Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Tariq Mehsan Jahangiri heard the PTI leader’s petition.
During the hearing, Khan’s attorney Barrister Salman Safdar informed the bench that interim bail was granted by the banking court on October 17. He added that on November 3, during the long march in Wazirabad, shots were fired at the PTI leader.
Khan’s attorney stated, “Exemption was requested six times after the incident and twice before the incident.” He added that his client never shied away from appearing in court and that everyone was aware of the medical grounds and facts.
After hearing the arguments, the court issued a stay order prohibiting the banking court from issuing a verdict until February 22. In addition, the bench instructed the attorney to submit a new medical report on the PTI leader at the next hearing.
What transpired in banking court?
Today, when Judge Rakhshanda Shaheen arrived at court, she ordered the courtroom to be emptied due to the large number of people present. The judge then ordered a recess to allow the courtroom to empty.
When the hearing resumed, Khan’s attorney, Barrister Salman Safdar, began arguing for a three-week extension of the PTI leader’s interim bail.
The attorney informed the judge that his client was over 70 years old but physically fit due to regular exercise. He added that it takes a young person three months to recover from a bullet wound.
Safdar further disclosed that his client was exempt from biometric verification due to his advanced age. He then urged the court to grant the former prime minister a three-week reprieve from appearing in court.
The attorney also shared the PTI leader’s x-rays.
“We are only requesting three weeks so that he can stand without assistance. “If our appeal is not heard, it must be documented that our medical [evaluation] is incorrect,” stated Safdar. He added that the court must also record that the PTI’s leader was not struck.
Before concluding his arguments, the attorney informed the court that his client was not currently in Islamabad.
After Khan’s attorney concluded his arguments, co-accused Tariq Shafi’s attorney Mian Ali Ashfaq took the stand.
Ashfaq argued that a criminal case cannot be filed in the case involving prohibited funding.
“Even if the initial report of information (FIR) is accepted, there will be no conviction,” Ashfaq asserted. He also inquired as to whether there was a statement or document indicating that the funds were prohibited.
He argued that a mosque is not required to inquire about the donors’ income sources.
The attorney added that even if Abraaj founder Arif Naqvi had committed a crime, the party that collected the funds could not be deemed guilty.
“It is alleged that Arif Naqvi committed the crime abroad. What are we doing here if Arif Naqvi has already been sentenced?” asked the attorney. He also claimed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation concealed information.
The attorney for Shafi questioned how his client, Imran Khan, and Amir Kayani were at fault if Naqvi defaulted overseas.
At this point, Judge Shaheen intervened and informed the attorney that his arguments were incorrect because the case only involved bail.
“I will make no comment, as this is only a bail hearing,” stated the judge.
After the arguments of the PTI leader’s and co-attorneys accused’s concluded, the special prosecutor Raja Rizwan Abbasi presented his.
Abbasi stated that it was argued in court that donors to mosques are never questioned. It occurs only in Pakistan and never in the United Arab Emirates.
After hearing from all of the attorneys, the judge ordered Khan to appear in court today.
“If Imran Khan fails to appear, the law will take its course,” warned Judge Shaheen.
Once the hearing resumed, Khan’s attorney stated that the high court has prevented this court from issuing bail orders.
The judge responded that she had not received an order regarding this matter.
The attorney asked the judge to delay the decision until 4 p.m. The judge responded that she will if this order has been issued, otherwise she will announce a decision.
“If the court does not issue a stay order, a decision will be made on the bail application,” said Judge Shaheen.
The banking court then requested a copy of the IHC’s stay order.
The judge stated that the copy will be validated once it is received by the court.
The hearing was postponed until that time.
As soon as the hearing resumed, Judge Shaheen confirmed that she had received the IHC order and postponed the verdict on the bail motion.
