Imran’s interim bail in seven cases cancelled

The Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) on Friday rejected Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan's request for exemption from attendance in court in seven cases and cancelled his interim bail.

ATC Judge Ijaz Ahmad Butar heard plea for exemption in seven cases, including the May 9 riots and the attack on Jinnah House. After hearing arguments from both sides, the court reserved its ruling which was announced later in the day.

During the hearing, Special Prosecutor Farhad Ali Shah presented arguments on behalf of the government, while Barrister Salman Safdar presented arguments on the PTI chairman’s behalf.

Presenting his arguments, Barrister Safdar sought time for arguments. However, the judge ordered him to argue the case.

Safdar said that Imran would appear in the court, if his production order was issued.

Special Prosecutor Farhad argued that the court could not give benefits against the law.

He told the court how the bail would continue, when the accused was a convict and how could a convict be summoned to the court for interim bail.

After hearing the arguments from both the parties, the court reserved its decision on the request of the PTI chairman for exemption from personal appearance in interim bail in seven cases.

Later, the ruling of bail cancellation was announced.

Jail transfer

Separately, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) reserved its judgment, observing that it would pass an appropriate order on an appeal of the PTI chairman, seeking his shifting from the Attock jail to the Adiala jail.

IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq reserved the verdict after hearing arguments from both sides.

He said that he would also issue an order on the matter of providing facilities to the PTI chairman.

During the course of hearing, the chief justice remarked that the petitioner was of the view that the trial court had sent him to the Adiala Central Jail but he was lodged in the Attock District Jail.

Assistant Advocate General of Punjab Rao Shaukat produced a notification regarding the shifting of the convict to the Attock jail, saying reasons had been mentioned in it.

To a court query, Shaukat added that a lawyer of the PTI chairman had already met him on Aug 7 to take his signatures on the power of attorney and other documents.

However, the court questioned whether a lawyer could meet his client only for taking his signatures on the document.

He warned that rejecting the requests to visit the prisoner could fall under contempt of court.

Shaukat said the jail administration had permitted the lawyer to visit Imran on Aug 7, but they reached late on Aug 8 and 9.

However, the petitioner’s counsel Sher Afzal Marwat contested the claim.

Let the representative of the Punjab government give an affidavit here that “we arrived at half past 4”, Marwat said, adding that they were humiliated for meeting the PTI chairman.

Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, another lawyer for the PTI chief, said that they were pleading 180 cases and they needed to take the advice of their client.

The chief justice said there should be a proper meeting.

The chief justice questioned about the timing of the meeting, asking wither it was from 8 in the morning till 2 or 3 in the evening.

Shaukat replied that it was exactly the same.

About the rules regarding the convict’s meeting with lawyers, Shaukat said that it could happen during the meeting hours.

Marwat said that a case was registered against him and the time of the incident was recorded at half past eight.

PTI chairman’ counsel Naeem Haider Panjutha came to the rostrum, saying that he went to meet the PTI chairman in jail and found no security issue there.

He added that he talked to media talk outside, therefore he was being targeted.

Shaukat said that a separate cook had been arranged for cooking food for the PTI chairman, while a medical officer and a deputy superintendent of police (DSP) checked the food before it was served.

The lawyer said that the family of the PTI chairman had expressed the fear that he might be poisoned.

The chief justice said that the PTI chairman was in custody and the responsibility lied on the jail superintendent.

The chief justice observed that the PTI chief was a former prime minister and leader of a big political party, and at the same time he was convicted, therefore, “we have to move while keeping in mind all of this together”.

He said the PTI chairman should be provided facilities as per the rules, adding that the court would pass an order pertaining to the provision of facilities to the PTI chief in prison and the permission to meet his lawyers.