Pakistan

Jail staff ‘fails’ to produce Imran via video link

ATC reserves order on PTI founder’s bail plea

Our Correspondent July 07, 2024

Former premier appears before SC bench via video link. PHOTO: X/ FILE

LAHORE:

An anti-terrorism court (ATC) on Saturday reserved its order on the bail applications submitted by former prime minister Imran Khan in three different cases related to the May 9, 2023, incidents of vandalism, including the attack on Lahore corps commander’s residence, the Jinnah House.

As proceedings on the bail applications commenced, ATC Judge Khalid Arshad directed the court staff to contact Adiala Jail authorities to present Imran Khan in court via video link.

After a short while, the court staff informed the judge that they were attempting to contact the jail authority but without success. The judge observed that the hearing could proceed if the state law officer confirmed that Imran Khan was currently detained at Adiala Jail.

Imran Khan’s lawyer, Barrister Salman Safdar, shared the jail superintendent’s mobile phone number with the court staff. The court briefly adjourned after instructing its staff to contact the jail authority to confirm whether Imran Khan was present in the prison.

When proceedings resumed, the staff informed the ATC judge that the superintendent had affirmed the court’s query. The judge asked the staff to include the jail superintendent’s email as part of the court record. He referred to the Lahore High Court’s order regarding marking Imran Khan’s attendance via video link. “I just want to satisfy myself by seeing the petitioner through video link,” he said.

Starting his arguments, Safdar stated that Imran is being subjected to political victimization. “I have not seen another politician facing as many cases,” he added. The counsel contended that the acts of vandalism on May 9 occurred while the former prime minister was in National Accountability Bureau (NAB) custody.

He said his client had announced a hunger strike in jail, not to beg for mercy from the rulers but as a protest against a system “which is not providing him justice in these politically motivated cases registered against him with mala fide intent.”