Court reserves verdict on Imran Khan's interim bail in three May 9 cases

ATC reserves verdict on ex-PM's interim bail after hearing arguments from prosecutor and Imran Khan's counsel Safdar

LAHORE:

An anti-terrorism court has reserved its decision on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan's interim bail requests related to the May 9 incidents, including the Jinnah House case and two other cases.

During the hearing on Saturday, Imran counsel, Barrister Salman Safdar, argued that the PTI founder was being targeted for political reasons.

"In my entire career, I have never seen so many cases against a single individual. Those who were actually inciting against institutions at the scene were not arrested," Safdar alleged.

How could a case be filed against him when he was in custody at the time of the crime?" PTI chief's counsel questioned.

The government lawyer countered, stating that according to a special branch report, the former premier had instructed his followers to attack civil and military installations if he were arrested.

"The directive to attack military installations across Pakistan resulted in the events that transpired," the prosecutor claimed.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the court reserved its judgement on Khan’s interim bail requests.

Earlier this week, on July 3, A district and sessions court in Islamabad acquitted the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Imran Khan, along with all other defendants in a case registered at Islamabad’s Aabpara police station.

Judicial Magistrate Yasir Mahmood announced the reserved verdict, clearing Imran Khan, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Sheikh Rasheed, Shehryar Afridi, Faisal Javed, Raja Khurram Nawaz, Ali Nawaz Awan, Asad Qaiser, and others of all charges.

The acquittal came after the defence, represented by Advocate Sardar Masroof and Ansar Kiani, presented their arguments on behalf of accused Imran Khan, Sheikh Rasheed, and others.

On July 1, at least 140 workers of PTI were acquitted in a case related to holding a rally before the general elections.

The court found that the accused were neither arrested at the scene nor was any incriminating material recovered from them. Furthermore, there were no complaints from local residents regarding road blockades.