LAHORE, Aug 24: Former prime minister Imran Khan challenged the decision of the anti-terrorist court dismissing his pre-arrest bail in seven cases including the Jinnah House attack case.
The PTI chief filed a petition in the Lahore High Court (LHC) through his counsel Salman Safdar. He stated that he is currently incarcerated in Attock jail after being sentenced by a trial court in the Toshakhana case, hence, it is not possible to ensure his presence before the court.
It is worth mentioning that the Registrar’s Office of the LHC had objected as attested copies of certain documents were not attached to the case file. However, a division bench of the high court will hear the matter.
“The petitioner found himself implicated in seven cases encompassing offenses under the PPC in conjunction with Sections 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. To circumvent arrest, the petitioner, having obtained protective bail from the High Court, voluntarily surrendered before the Learned Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court. Subsequently, ad-interim pre-arrest bails were secured across all 7 cases, and also joined in the investigation,” said the petition.
“The petitioner made physical appearances before the Trial Court, dutifully marking his attendance, a fact readily evident from the interim orders. Furthermore, the petitioner continued presenting himself before the Special Judge of the Anti-Terrorism Court. However, despite these efforts, the bail petitions were not heard, and the cases were adjourned after marking attendance. The Anti-Terrorism Court diligently deliberated over comprehensive arguments presented by both parties in relation to two pre-arrest bail applications associated with Case FIR No. 388/23 and 410/23, ultimately
reserving the same for Final Order. Out of 7 bail applications, the Learned Special Judge presiding over the proceedings meticulously heard complete argumentsand adjourned the case for announcing of the Oorder.”
“On August 8, 2023, all seven bail applications, filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in conjunction with 21-D of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were fixed for final arguments and a verdict before the Judge Anti-TerrorismCourt Lahore. Here, on behalf of the petitioner, an application was presented, seeking an exemption from personal appearance, alongside a prayer requesting an Order for petitioner’s production from Attock Jail,” added Imran’s petition.
Subsequently, notices were issued to the state, and the case was fixed for August 11, 2023, on the maintainability of the application filed on behalf of the petitioner, with the following direction:
“An application is submitted on behalf of petitioner Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi for his personal exemption on the ground that he is in prison and is unable to attend the court and requested for an adjournment while dispensing with his personal attendance.”
“Since the accused/petitioner is a convicted prisoner, hence notice to the prosecution is also given and learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to argue upon the point of maintainability of said application.”
“Regrettably, instead of rendering a judgment based on the merits of the pending pre-arrest bail applications and simply ordering the petitioner’s production from the Attock Jail, the Anti-Terrorism Court Judge dismissed all seven bail applications due to the petitioner’s non-appearance before the Court, hence causing grave miscarriage of justice.”
The petition further added that the ATC judge “unjustly and erroneously dismissed the petitioner’s applications, bail petitions, neglecting to engage in a thorough discussion of their merits”
No comment