Imran's physical remand plea rejected

SC judge questions delay in request after one and a half year

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the Punjab government's plea for the physical remand of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf founder Imran Khan.

A three-member SC bench headed by Justice Hashim Kakar heard the case.

The Punjab government's counsel argued that physical remand of the accused was necessary to conduct photogrammetric analysis, polygraph testing, and voice matching.

Justice Hashim Kakar observed that the appeals were filed solely for the physical remand of the accused, noting that no request for any tests had been made. He questioned why the Punjab government was seeking physical remand after a delay of one and a half years, adding that at this stage, there was no justification to grant such a request.

The special prosecutor said the PTI founder was not cooperating with the investigating team.

Justice Kakar remarked as to what kind of cooperation is required from an accused incarcerated in prison. The judge suggested that the test could be conducted after seeking permission from a trial court.

The special prosecutor said the investigating team went to jail to grill the PTI founder on July 14, 2024 but the accused refused to cooperate. He said Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram record contains the messages of the PTI founder that threatened to hold protests if Imran Khan was arrested.

Justice Salah Uddin Panhwar remarked if these messages are saved in a USB device, get the forensic done. He observed that the police do not conduct such tests in an ordinary murder case, asking why police fail to be that active in ordinary murder cases.

Justice Kakar said if the court makes any observation, it will affect the trial.

Later, the court dismissed two appeals filed by the Punjab government for Imran's physical remand.

The court remarked that the prosecution is free to move the trial court for polygraph, photogrammetric and voice matching tests. It also observed that the legal team of the PTI founder could raise legal and factual objections on such an appeal in the trial court.