A trial court judge has said in a written order that it was ridiculous to assume that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan had planned his own arrest on May 9 to execute a conspiracy to carry out violence across the country, adding that it was a silly excuse to implicate a person in a case.
Additional District and Sessions Judge Farrukh Fareed Baloch on Saturday issued the written order after hearing the PTI chief’s pre-arrest bail plea in a case registered against him at the city’s Shahzad Town police station in connection with the May 9 violence.
The order read that no clause had been so misinterpreted or misused as the one related to incitement of violence. It added that a nexus must be established between the act of incitement and the commission of the crime.
It said it was necessary to prove that the offense was committed as a result of provocation.
The order said it was an admitted fact that the PTI chairman was in the custody of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) when angry protesters vandalized and set fire to state and army properties and memorial on May 9.
The judge noted that the accusation exposed the police’s malicious and nefarious motives, adding handing over Imran Khan to the police would only result in subjecting the accused to “unnecessary humiliation”.
The court approved the PTI chairman’s pre-arrest bail on a surety bond of Rs5,000.
Another court in Islamabad granted one-day exemption to the PTI chairman from appearing in the Toshakhana (gift depository) case.
Additional District and Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar accepted Imran’s exemption plea and ordered him to ensure his presence before the court on July 24 (Monday).
The judge asked PTI lawyer Barrister Gohar Ali if his client would appear in his court on Monday. Barrister Ali replied that Imran would be appearing before the Supreme Court on Monday for a case filed against him in Quetta.
The lawyer for the Election Commission of Pakistan, Amjad Pervaiz, requested the court to direct the former premier to submit an affidavit that he would appear for the proceedings in this case after his hearing in the SC.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ