IHC reserves verdict on Imran’s bail plea in 190m

Ex-PM’s lawyer argues his client did not derive any personal benefit

News Desk May 14, 2024


The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday reserved its judgment on the bail plea of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan in the £190 million settlement case.

A two-member bench comprising IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri reserved the decision following the completion of arguments presented by both the sides.

Amjad Parvez, the special prosecutor of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), contended that the funds should have been remitted to the government of Pakistan.

"The Supreme Court clearly stated in its verdict that the funds were mistakenly deposited into the Supreme Court's account. This act of secrecy constitutes a significant deception," Parvez asserted.

Also read: Imran, Bushra indicted in £190m corruption case

Concluding his arguments, Parvez urged the court to expedite the trial proceedings rather than considering bail at this stage.

Responding to the prosecution's claims, Imran Khan's lawyer, Sardar Latif Khosa, challenged the allegations, particularly those made by former aide Shahzad Akbar. Khosa questioned why Imran Khan was being held accountable for matters beyond his control.

Khosa highlighted that a witness of NAB acknowledged the absence of Imran Khan's signature and affirmed that no funds were directed to the PTI founder's account or that of his wife, Bushra Bibi.

"Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi did not derive any personal benefit from these transactions," Khosa emphasised.
Following the conclusion of arguments from both parties, the court reserved its verdict on Imran Khan's bail plea in the case.

The case revolves around allegations of corruption and abuse of authority linked to a financial settlement during the PTI’s tenure, which reportedly incurred a £190 million loss to the national exchequer.


Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ