Islamabad:
Former Prime Minister Imran Khan challenged an order from the High Court of Lahore (LHC) rejecting his pleas, claiming that the prosecution had adopted three different positions to link it to the alleged conspiracy of May 9, 2023 of riot incidents, which were all rejected by various courts.
The founder of the PTI through his lawyer Salman Safdar filed a request against the LHC order before the Supreme Court. A High Court division bench led by judge Shahbaz Ali Rizvi on June 24, judged that Imran would have been involved in the re -eminence plot given the testimonies of two police officers.
Commenting on the order, the petition said that the accusation had not repeatedly established any credible link between Imran Khan and the alleged occurrence as told in the FIR.
According to the petition, the accusation in its attempts to affect the petitioner to the alleged acts of conspiracy and complicity resorts to three contradictory versions, each differing in terms of date, time, location and alleged witnesses.
He declared that the three versions were judicially disbelieved either by the anti-terrorist courts (ATC) or by the LHC. He noted that during the release procedures under bond before the arrest before the ATC-III in Lahore, the accusation said late that a police manager Hassam Afzal would have heard a conspiracy in Zaman Park.
He said this event had taken place two days before May 9 – May 7. The accusation also said that another Asmat Kamal inspector heard the accounting of the chakri rest area five days before the event – May 4, 2023
“This version, however, was discredited due to the failure of the accusation to justify the delayed disclosure of this critical information and was therefore rejected by the learned ATC-III special judge in Lahore who confirmed the pre-arimed sureties of the petitioner on March 1, 2024 in FIR n ° 366/23 and 1078/23.”
The petition said that after the collapse of its first story, the accusation advanced a second version in the criminal review hearing before the LHC, saying that Imran Khan would have encouraged acts through media declarations.
However, the accusation could not produce any reprehensible or incriminating material to support this assertion, which led the LHC to also reject this version.
Subsequently, the State sought to rely on the declarations of three new witnesses – including the heads of PTI Sadaqat Abbasi and Wasiq Qayyum – as new evidence to support its third version of the plot.
“This last attempt was also found missing and was expressly disbelieved by the ATC-I, Rawalpindi, who discharged the co-accused Bushra Imran by an order well linked to 20.08.2024.
“The continuation of the accusation not to present coherent evidence, coherent and credible after multiple opportunities, clearly brought the case in the field of a more in-depth investigation, which makes the petitioner right to the concession of the post-arrest deposit under article 497 (2) of CRPC 1898”, he said.
The petition said that despite the rejection of the three versions of prosecutor by various competent forums, the LHC refused Imran’s surety while based solely on the declarations of the two police officials – Inspector Asmat Kamal and Asi Hassam Afzal.
“These same statements, however, had already been incredulous judicially in previous procedures where pre-arrest and post-arrest guarantees were granted to the petitioner,” he said.
He indicated that the dependence granted by the LHC on the police declarations previously rejected and delayed was a clear inconsistency in the judicial assessment of the evidence.
“These contradictory opinions on the courts below, in particular in a case where the only allegation is complicity and conspiracy, strengthens more than the case deserves a more in-depth examination and raises squarely in the parameters of a more in-depth investigation,” he said.
According to the petition, in the order, the LHC tried to justify the delay in the declarations of the witnesses by relying on an explanation provided by the prosecutor, who said that the information concerning the reduction had been quickly communicated and brought to the police file on May 4, 2023.
“Crimaculation, this explanation had never been offered before any judicial forum or during the pre-arrest or post-arrest procedure before the ATC scholars, neither during hearings in pre-trial detention, nor even before the LHC during the return hearing or the Supreme Court in the early stadiums.
“This new explanation appears for the first time in the attacked order, without any proof or affirmation of prosecution to support it.
“The appeal hung on such a retrospective and unfounded declaration of the prosecutor constitutes a manifest error on the part of the scholarly division bench,” he added.
He declared that the LHC inadvertently fills the gaps left by the accusation – a task clearly outside the scope of the judicial discretion in matters of surety and undermines the equity of the reasoning applied in the contested order.
The petition said that Imran Khan had been involved in a maliciously involved in the case in the context of a calculated and politically motivated design to prolong its incarceration and to subject it to harassment, and to tarnish its public image.
He said the circumstances show that the arrest of the petitioner has never been truly required in the cases concerning May 9. This was obvious to the remarkable inaction of the police over an extended period of fourteen months by involving and arresting the petitioner in this case.
The petition said that the police knew where the petitioners were – the adjustment prison – but did not try to attempt significantly to make its arrest. “This lack of emergency or interest on the part of the investigation agency strongly supports the conclusion that the arrest was not necessary by the substance of the case, but was rather an oppression tool, thus justifying the granting of a post-arrest deposit”
The petition declared that Imran Khan was entitled to the granting of a post-arrest deposit on the principle of well established coherence, as confirmed by various judgments of the Supreme Court.
“An order of release under critical and directly relevant surety has been made in favor of a co-accused, Mr. Ejaz Chaudhary, by [the SC] May 2, 2025, during the current release under deposit before the [LHC]seems to have escaped the attention of the scientist division.
“The said order was made by a bench of three members led by judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan, in which a deposit after the judgment was granted to Mr. Ejaz Chaudhary despite allegations of conspiracy concerning the events of May 9.
“In paragraph 5 of said judgment, this [SC] expressed his concern about the failure of the accusation to justify the delay in registering the complainant’s additional declaration
“In addition, in paragraph 6, it was judged that during a provisional assessment of the file, the case against the co-accused was from the end of the investigation under article 497 (2) of the CRPC 1898.”
The petition underlined that the ATC-III in Lahore confirmed the pre-stopping bond of Imran in two cases of May 9 by a detailed order on March 1, 2024, followed by the granting of a post-arrest guarantee in four additional cases on November 8, 204.
“These orders, on the basis of similar allegations and the same proceedings, were not canceled by any Superior Court and reached the purpose.”
He declared that Imran Khan had already obtained a deposit in 21 criminal cases resulting from the incidents of May 9, which leaned on significantly identical evidence.
“These coherent judicial conclusions strongly support its right to post-arrest arrest in the parity ground and a more in-depth investigation, in particular in the face of a case made at the request of political adversaries.
“In addition, both [the LHC] and the [ATCs] In Lahore and Rawalpindi, in several procedures, have recorded observations which have put a serious doubt about the credibility of the account of the accusation, “he said.
