LHC seeks details of cases against IK

Lahore High Court (LHC) has directed the Punjab prosecutor general to come up by Thursday with all details of registration of FIRs against PTI's founding chairman Imran Khan, challans submitted and the progress of investigation in the cases.

A division bench headed by Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh raised questions over the registration of FIRs with same allegations and the procedure adopted for seeking remand.

The bench was hearing pleas challenging the former prime minister's 10-day physical remand in 12 cases of May 9, 2023, riots.

The petitioner's counsel Barrister Salman Safdar argued that an anti-terrorism court had granted the remand in an unlawful manner.

When told to come towards the basic facts of the case by the bench's member Justice Anwaarul Haq Pannun, the counsel contended that the petitioner was allegedly abducted from the biometrics room of the Islamabad High Court and the arrest was later declared unlawful by the Supreme Court.

From May 9 to 12, the petitioner was disconnected from the world and unaware of the public reaction over his arrest, the lawyer claimed.

During a hearing, Supreme Court Justice Athar Minallah had asked the leader if he knew what had happened after his arrest, upon which he had condemned the incidents, the counsel stated.

Justice Tariq Sheikh asked how many cases were registered against the petitioner after May 9. The counsel said he had got signed 300 power of attorney documents from Khan and these had finished now.

Prosecutor General Syed Farhad Ali Shah argued that 37 FIRs were registered against Imran Khan after May 9, including 18 of Lahore.

Justice Sheikh asked in how many cases had the petitioner been nominated through supplementary statement. Justice Pannun also asked in which cases complete challans had been submitted.

Barrister Safdar stated that as per his information, there are 20 cases in which IK was nominated through supplementary statements.

He said the PTI leader was under physical remand in 12 cases and head obtained pre-arrest bail in three.

He argued that in nine cases, the police had never mentioned the arrest of the petitioner in 14 months. The arrest in these cases was mentioned later.

The prosecutor general said the arrests had been mentioned in the light of the evidence or the statements available.