On Monday, the trial courts were ordered to rehear Imran Khan’s applications for release after the Islamabad High Court (IHC) accepted Khan’s appeal for the termination of his bail by lower courts in nine cases.
The appeal was considered by a panel consisting of Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri and IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq.
Several lower courts’ rulings to cancel Imran’s bails were overturned by the bench, and the bails were reinstated.
Other than the Toshakhana (gift repository) case, the breach of Section 144 case, and the attempt to murder case, Imran had his bails revoked in three instances related to the May 9 riots, three charges addressing protests in Islamabad.
Three of the bail hearings took place in anti-terrorism tribunals, while six took place in district and session courts.
The decision on whether or not to hold in-camera sessions of Imran’s bail application in the cypher case had been reserved earlier in the day by another IHC panel comprised Chief Justice Aamer Farooq.
Prosecutor Shah Khawar of the FIA argued that having the case heard in open court would be a diplomatic disaster. The federal agency was also planning to file an application with the trial court, and the prosecutor informed the IHC of this.
Inquiring as to whether the bail plea may be heard in open court, Chief Justice Farooq commented that the trial court would make its own determination. He pressed the prosecutor for details on whether or not the cypher came with its own set of rules.
At that point, the cipher’s code of behaviour was read aloud in open court. The prosecutor claimed that an open court hearing could threaten Pakistan’s relations with other countries because the FIA sought to present statements supplied by such countries.
Justice Farooq at one point pressed the FIA for information on the cipherbreaker. In response, Khawar said the cypher was a classified document that needed to be protected. Coded versions of these documents were received via email or fax and stored at the foreign ministry, he said.
Legal representation for the defendant implied that the court could order the removal of any individual from the courtroom. The chief justice said that, with the exception of a missing person’s case once or twice, he had not conducted an in-camera hearing in his courtroom in nine years.
The defence attorney questioned the timing of the FIA’s request. He claimed that the FIA had not made any such claims throughout the defense’s presentation of its arguments to the court. Advocate Safdar questioned why the application was not submitted to the lower court.
Safdar contended that a bail hearing could not take place behind closed doors, contrary to the FIA’s request. He went on to say that this request might be made in front of the trial court, but not for the post-arrest bail, and that any sensitive information could be provided in the judge’s chambers.
Domestic dispute
Separately, Judge Qudratullah postponed the hearing of the alleged illegal marriage case against the PTI chairman to October 12, requesting that Imran’s attorney, Sher Afzal Marwat, respond to the court’s questions at that time.
Despite the judge’s summons, the PTI leader was not taken to court. The prosecutor also skipped court today. Marwat informed the judge that the prosecutor had missed the last hearing despite being offered a final opportunity to appear.
It was claimed in court that Imran had wed Bushra Bibi before the end of her “Iddat” period following her divorce from her first husband. The cleric who performed the Nikah allegedly said that the marriage was invalid, and the judge informed Marwat of this.
He probed Marwat more, wanting to know if he accepted that the wedding happened during the Iddat.
He went on to query Imran’s attorney on the possibility of a divorced woman claiming an inheritance from a deceased spouse who passed away during the divorced woman’s Iddat.
Marwat responded that unmarried women of Iddat era might claim an inheritance if they so desired. The judge informed the counsel that this meant the divorce was invalid.
He then turned to Marwat, asking when exactly the divorce will take effect. The issue of divorce, however, was not before the court, as Marwat pointed out. He went on to say that the family court was the proper venue for divorce proceedings. It was further highlighted by the lawyer that getting married during the Iddat was not illegal.
He went on to say that even if it were proven that the marriage took place during the Iddat, no punishment would be imposed because of the legislation. He claimed that whoever made the claims against Imran would have to provide evidence that the wedding occurred during Iddat.
Marwat was called upon by the court to address whether or not a divorced woman might file a claim for an inheritance in the event of the death of the spouse during the Iddat period.
Is it permissible for a man to remarry if he previously had four wives, but one of them divorced without having performed the Iddat? The judge also instructed the attorney he needed to clarify whether or not Imran’s wedding occurred under the Iddat era. Prosecutor Raja Rizwan Abbasi’s plea to present arguments at the next hearing was also granted.
