The Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in LAHORE/ISLAMABAD terminated Imran Khan’s interim release and denied his request for an exemption from court appearances in seven instances on Friday.
Seven cases were brought before ATC Judge Ijaz Ahmad Butar, including the attack on Jinnah House and the disturbances on May 9. The court heard arguments from both sides and will announce its decision later that day.
Special Prosecutor Farhad Ali Shah argued on behalf of the government during the hearing, while Barrister Salman Safdar argued on behalf of the PTI chairman.
Barrister Safdar made his case and asked for argument time. But the judge insisted that he present his argument.
Safdar assured the court that Imran would show up if a production order was issued for him.
Farhad, the special prosecutor, contended that the court had no authority to grant privileges in violation of the law.
He explained to the judge what would happen to the bail after the defendant was convicted and how a convicted defendant may be brought before the court for an interim bail hearing.
The PTI chairman asked for an exemption from personal appearance on interim bail in seven cases, and the court heard arguments on both sides before deferring a judgment.
The decision to dismiss bail was made later.
Inmate relocation
Separately, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) postponed its ruling on a petition of the PTI chairman, demanding his shifting from the Attock jail to the Adiala jail, observing that it will pass a suitable order.
IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq heard arguments from both sides and then withheld judgment.
He also promised to give an order in regards to the PTI chairman’s request for accommodations.
During the hearing, the chief justice noted that the petitioner believed he had been transferred to the Adiala Central Jail from the trial court, but in reality he was being held in the Attock District Jail.
The Assistant Advocate General of Punjab, Rao Shaukat, showed a notice that explained why the inmate had been sent to the Attock jail.
In response to the court’s inquiry, Shaukat stated that on August 7, he met with the PTI chairman’s counsel to sign the necessary paperwork.
The court, however, questioned whether an attorney might meet with a client only for the purpose of getting the client’s signature on a document.
Contempt of court could result from denying the requests to see the inmate, he said.
Shaukat claimed that the jail administration had given the lawyer permission to visit Imran on August 7, but that they didn’t get there until the next two days.
Sher Afzal Marwat, attorney for the petitioner, however, refuted such assertion.
Let the Punjab government’s representative swear under oath that “we arrived at half past 4”, Marwat added, adding that the officials felt ashamed after meeting with the PTI chairman.
Another of the PTI leader’s attorneys, Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, recently commented on how many cases they were pleading on behalf of their client: 180.
The chief justice has called for a formal meeting to be held.
The chief justice wanted to know if the meeting started at 8 a.m. and ended at 2 p.m. or 3 p.m.
Shaukat said that it was the same, and it was.
When asked about the guidelines for inmates meeting with their attorneys, Shaukat indicated that they might take place during regular business hours.
According to Marwat, a case was filed against him and the time of the occurrence was noted as 8:50 p.m.
Naeem Haider Panjutha, the attorney for the PTI chairman, stepped up to the podium and said that he had visited his client in jail and discovered no signs of a security breach.
He stated that he was singled out because he engaged in media outreach while in public.
A medical official and a deputy superintendent of police (DSP) inspected the food before it was served, and Shaukat added that a separate cook had been arranged to prepare meals for the PTI chairman.
The PTI chairman’s family, according to the lawyer, is concerned for his safety after hearing rumors that he may have been poisoned.
The top judge stated that the PTI chairman was in custody and that the jail administrator was to blame.
According to the chief judge, “we have to move while keeping in mind all of this together” because the PTI head was both a former prime minister and the leader of a major political party.
He argued that the PTI chairman should be granted visitation rights and other jail privileges in accordance with the rules, and he added that the court would issue an order on these matters.
