Islamabad:
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court rejected the advocacy of the Punjab government for the pre-trial detention of the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-E-insaf, Imran Khan.
A SC of three members led by judge Hashim Kakar heard the case.
The lawyer for the Punjab government argued that the accused’s physical dismissal was necessary to carry out a photogrammetric analysis, polygraph tests and vocal correspondence.
Judge Hashim Kakar observed that calls had been filed only for the accused’s physical dismissal, noting that no test requests had been carried out. He asked why the government of Punjab asked for pre -trial detention after a delay of a year and a half, adding that at this stage, there was no justification for granting such a request.
The special prosecutor said that the founder of the PTI did not cooperate with the investigation team.
Judge Kakar pointed out what type of cooperation is required by an accused imprisoned in prison. The judge suggested that the test could be carried out after requesting permission from a trial court.
The special prosecutor said that the investigation team had gone to prison to grill the founder of the PTI on July 14, 2024, but the accused refused to cooperate. He said Facebook, Twitter and Instagram records PTI founder’s messages that threatened to keep demonstrations if Imran Khan was arrested.
Judge Salah Uddin Panhwar pointed out that if these messages are recorded in a USB device, make the legistist. He observed that the police do not carry out such tests in an ordinary murder case, asking why the police are not as active in cases of ordinary murder.
Judge Kakar said that the court made an observation, this would affect the trial.
Later, the court rejected two calls filed by the Punjab government for the pre -trial detention of Imran.
The court pointed out that the accusation is free to move the court of first instance of the polygraph, photogrammetric and vocal tests. He also observed that the legal team of the founder of the PTI could raise legal and factual objections on such an appeal before the court of first instance.
