ISLAMABAD: Courts in the federal capital Thursday granted one-time exemptions from in-person appearances to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan in three separate cases.
The former prime minister — whose government was overthrown in April last year — was scheduled to appear before a district and sessions court, anti-terrorism court and Islamabad High Court (IHC).
The ex-premier is embroiled in legal battles — from lower courts to the Supreme Court — ranging from prohibited funding, sedition and terror charges — and in all, he denies any wrongdoing.
The PTI chief, who remained in power for nearly four years, claimed recently that 76 cases had been registered against him; however, The News’ investigation showed that he faces less than 40.
The IHC extended the interim bail of the PTI chairman till March 21 and directed him to join the investigation process in the case regarding an attack on Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) leader Mohsin Shahnawaz Ranjha.
The court also granted a one-time exemption from attendance to the PTI chairman. IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq presided over the hearing.
At the outset of the hearing, Advocate General, Islamabad, Jahangir Jadoon, informed the court that the PTI chief had not joined the investigation process. He said that the suspect should let the trial proceed in, at least, one case.
The IHC chief justice remarked that the law would take its course if Imran didn’t join the investigation process — as his moves will have consequences.
Justice Farooq observed that the court was granting time because Imran had to join the investigation.
The PTI chairman’s counsel adopted the stance that no investigation officer had approached his client in the case.
The prosecutor said that it was the suspect who had to appear before the investigation team instead of the IO.
The lawyer said that Imran was ready to join the investigation.
After this, the hearing of the case was adjourned till March 21.
It may be mentioned that the capital police had registered an FIR against Khan with regard to an attack on Ranjha during a protest after the decision of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in the Toshakhana case.
A local court also granted a one-time exemption from appearance to the PTI chief and adjourned the hearing in the case of Imran allegedly threatening a female judge till March 13.
Civil Judge Rana Mujahid Raheem heard the case against Imran regarding his alleged threatening remarks about the Judicial Magistrate Zeba Chaudhry.
Imran’s lawyer adopted the stance that the health condition of his client didn’t allow him to travel from Lahore to Islamabad.
Furthermore, there were also life threats to the PTI chief, he added.
The former prime minister prayed to the court to grant him a one-time exemption from appearance in the case.
The lawyer said that Imran wanted to appear before the court but he had been receiving life threats. He said that his client had given applications to different courts for appearance through video link.
The prosecutor said that Section-144 was imposed in Lahore but not on the appearance of the PTI chief.
After arguments, the court granted a one-time exemption from appearance to the PTI chief and adjourned the case till March 13.
Imran was booked in a case for threatening judicial magistrate Zeba Chaudhry and police officers at a rally in F-9 Park on August 20, to “terrorise” police officials and the judiciary.
However, the IHC quashed the terror charges and directed to transfer of the case to a relevant court under the remaining sections in the FIR on September 19.
In the terrorism case for protests outside the ECP office, Imran’s lawyer appeared before the anti-terrorism court (ATC) and sought an exemption for his client.
As the lawyer tried to present his arguments, ATC Judge Raja Jawad Abbas asked whether his arguments would be based on security threats to the PTI chief.
“Before the court, your arguments are presented on television,” the judge remarked and noted that he would wait for the IHC’s decision and then decide on the matter.
The prosecutor said that Imran claimed that his life was under threat, but he wished to lead rallies. He argued that it would be better for the PTI chief if he appeared before the court instead of wishing to lead rallies. The prosecutor demanded Imran’s exemption plea be thrown out.
The judge noted that if other suspects are given a chance, then why not Imran? The court — which resumed after a break — approved Imran’s exemption plea and extended his interim bail till March 21.
It is pertinent to mention here the terrorism case was lodged against the PTI chief in October last year at Islamabad’s Sangjani Police Station after PTI workers held protests and demonstrations outside the ECP offices across the country after it disqualified Imran in the Toshakhana reference.
Meanwhile, in Quetta, the judicial magistrate’s court issued non-bailable arrest warrants for Imran in the case of defamation against institutions.
A case regarding defamation of institutions against Imran was also registered at the Bijli Road Police Station, Quetta.
It may be recalled that two days back, in the case filed by a citizen Abdul Khalil Kakar, it was alleged that Imran made baseless allegations against the state institutions.
It was argued in the petition that Imran spread hatred by making unjustified inflammatory speeches against the officers of state institutions.
The PTI chairman had also filed an application for protective bail in the Quetta case in the Lahore High Court.
Meanwhile, the Lahore Police have registered a case against PTI leaders, including Imran, and 300/400 workers on various criminal charges following clashes at the former ruling party’s rally, which claimed the life of one PTI worker, Ali Bilal.
The case has been registered on the complaint of DSP Sabir Ali, in which Imran Khan, Farrukh Habib, Hassan Niazi, Ejaz Chaudhry, Hammad Azhar, Fawad Chaudhry and Mehmoodur Rashid have been nominated.
Violation of Section 144, assault on police officers, blocking the road and other sections (147, 149, 353, 186, 302, 188, 427, 290, 291, 109 and The Anti Terrorism Act 1997-7) have been included in the FIR.
According to the text of the FIR with the Race Course Police Station, the mob attacked the police with the intention of killing, which had to be avoided by tear gas shelling.
The PTI workers were told that Section 144 was in force but they violated the law. Thirteen police officers and jawans were injured due to the violence.
The Punjab IGP has formed a fact-finding committee to probe the clash between the police and PTI workers at Zaman Park on March 8.
The Punjab DIG Headquarters has issued a notification for the formation of a two-member committee.
The committee consisting of Elite Force DIG Sadiq Ali Dogar and SSP Imran Kishor will conduct the inquiry and submit a report within three days.
The committee will look into the CCTV footage of the incident, phone records and other videos and images in relation to the injured.
It will examine the incident of Ali Bilal’s death from all aspects and the statements of eyewitnesses will also be recorded.
Lahore High Court (LHC) judge Justice Shamas Mehmood Mirza, meanwhile, suspended the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) ban on the telecast of live or recorded speeches of Imran as well as his press talk.
The court also sent the matter to a full bench and adjourned the hearing till March 13.
On March 5, Pemra banned the PTI chairman’s electronic media coverage due to his alleged controversial comments against the former army chief and others.
As the hearing commenced on Thursday, Justice Mirza asked how a ban could be imposed on the head of a political party, saying that it was against the freedom of speech.
The counsel for Pemra argued that the matter should be heard by a full bench, saying that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter.
However, the counsel for the PTI chairman argued that Pemra’s ban was a violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution. He implored the court to set aside the unconstitutional orders of Pemra.
The court, after hearing both parties, reserved its verdict on the matter for a while, and later on suspended the authority’s order and sent the matter to the full bench.
