The PTI chairman had on August 20 strongly critcized the police as well as the judiciary over the alleged custodial torture of Shahbaz Gill and announced that his party would file cases against Inspector General of Police (IGP) Dr Akbar Nasir Khan, the DIG and Additional District and Sessions Judge Zeba Chaudhry.
Initially, Imran was booked under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). Besides, Islamabad High Court (IHC) also initiated contempt of court proceedings against him.
Later, the IHC removed the terrorism charges against Imran and also pardoned him after he tendered an apology in the contempt case. However, a similar case, filed after the registration of a first information report (FIR) against him for threatening the judge, is pending before the sessions court.
Also read: Islamabad court orders Imran Khan’s arrest in Toshakhana case
On Tuesday (today), Imran Khan approached Islamabad Session Court, challenging the non-bailable arrest warrant related to judge-threatening case. The petition, filed in the court of Duty Judge Sikandar Khan since Session Judge was on leave, was marked to Additional Session Judge Faizal Haider Gilani.
During the proceedings today, Intazar Hussain Panjutha and Naeem Panjutha appeared on behalf of Imran Khan and argued that every section mentioned in the case was bailable, adding that despite being the former premier, the government had withdrawn his security.
After hearing the arguments and counter arguments, the court suspended the arrest warrant till March 16, and issued notices to the parties. The court also directed Khan’s lawyers to submit documents about withdrawal of security.
The Verdict:
Additional Session Judge -IX Sayyed Faizan Haider wrote:
Fresh entrustment: Through the instant revision petition u/s 439 & 435 Cr.PC, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 13.03.2023 of the SCJ-II/Judicial Magistrate, whereby, non-bailable warrants have been issued for the appearance of accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in disregard to provision of sections 90/91 and 204 Cr.PC readwith Chapter-1, Volume III, Part-C, Rule 2 & 3 of the Lahore High Court, Rules & Orders. It was further contended on behalf of petitioner that due to serious security threat to the life of petitioner, the petitioner could not appear before the learned trial Court; in this regard, the security provided by the Government has also been withdrawn. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment to place on record the letter of Government of Punjab, whereby, the security provided to the petitioner (former Prime Minister) was withdrawn. Let the needful be done.
Points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner need consideration. Now to come up for arguments on 16.03.2023 in the meanwhile, operation of the impugned order is hereby suspended till next date.
