ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) declared that case of Toshakhana-II is the case of further inquiry. A single bench of Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, on Monday, issued detailed judgment in former prime minister Imran Khan’s petition seeking bail in Toshakhana-II case.
The bench has already granted bail to Imran Khan in Toshakhana-II case through a short order.
In this detailed judgment, Justice Miangul stated that his tentative view is that the petitioner’s case is not on higher pedestal from that of his wife who has already been granted post-arrest bail by this Court as the report under Section 173 CrPC places both of them in the same category.
He added that the entrustment of the jewellery set is alleged against the petitioner as well as his wife. However, the receipt for the payment has admittedly been issued to the petitioner’s wife and not to the petitioner.
The verdict noted, “The petitioner is 72 years of age. In this case, he was arrested on 13.07.2024 and remained incarcerated at Central Prison, Rawalpindi for more than four months. The Investigation Officer has not felt the need to question the petitioner after the entrustment of the case to FIA. Since the reference against the petitioner had earlier been filed before Accountability Court-I, Islamabad, this would mean that the investigation in the case is complete.”
“The charge against the petitioner has not been framed as yet, therefore, the conclusion of the trial is not in sight. The evidence in the case is largely documentary in nature which is already in the prosecution’s possession. Hence, there is no chance of the petitioner tampering with such evidence. Bearing in mind the principles of consistency as well as my tentative view that this is the case of further inquiry, post-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner vide short order of even date,” maintained the judge.
Through the instant criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner, Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi, sought the grant of post-arrest bail in FIA case NoSJC-1/T/01/2024, dated 18.09.2024, registered under Sections 109 and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (“PPC”) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (“the 1947 Act”), at Police Station, FIA, Anti-Corruption, Islamabad.
Counsel for the petitioner, after narrating the facts leading to the filing of the instant petition, submitted that on account of being the former Prime Minister, the petitioner has been subjected to political victimisation by the registration of several cases against him; that the petitioner has remained incarcerated since 05.08.2023 in different cases; that in the instant case, he was arrested by NAB on 13.07.2024 and has remained incarcerated for more than four months; that the investigation in the case against him is complete and his custody is not required for any further questioning; that the petitioner is more than 72 years of age; that after the case was referred by learned Accountability Court-II, Islamabad to the Federal Investigation Agency (“FIA”) on 09.09.2024, FIA completed the probe against the petitioner and his wife on 20.09.2024.
The counsel for the petitioner went through the contents of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (“Cr.PC”) and submitted that at best the case against the petitioner was that he did not deposit the jewellery set with the Cabinet Division/Toshakhana; that there is no allegation against the petitioner to the effect that the factum as to receipt of the jewellery set had not been reported to the Cabinet Division/Toshakhana; that the Cabinet Division’s Office Memorandum (“O.M.”) dated 18.12.2018 which was in vogue when the jewellery set was gifted to the petitioner’s wife does not make the non-deposit of a gift liable to “appropriate action;” and that when the said jewellery set was gifted to the petitioner’s wife, “relevant rules” had not been framed for taking action against an individual who had not reported the receipt of a gift; and that since this Court vide order dated 23.10.2024 granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner’s wife in the very same case, therefore under the principle of consistency, post-arrest bail ought to be granted to the petitioner.
Justice Miangul Hassan observed, “The “procedure for the acceptance and disposal of gifts” contained in the Cabinet Division’s O.M. dated 18.12.2018 was in force when the said jewellery set was allegedly gifted to the petitioner’s wife. In the report under Section 173 Cr.PC, stress has been laid on clause (1) of the said procedure to bring home the point that the petitioner was not just liable to declare the receipt of the gift but also to deposit the same with the Toshakhana/Cabinet Division, and that such non-deposit would entail criminal liability under Section 409 PPC.”
He said that the said O.M. dated 18.03.2023 was to have effect from 22.02.2023 while Special Prosecutor, FIA submitted very fairly that the said O.M. dated 18.03.2023 does not have retrospective effect so as to be made applicable to the case against the petitioner which took place almost two years before the said O.M. was issued.
He mentioned that much emphasis was laid by the Special Prosecutor, FIA on the fact that the petitioner and his wife had earlier been convicted by Accountability Court-I, Islamabad vide judgment dated 31.01.2024 for having retained a gift of a Graff jewellery set made to petitioner’s wife by the Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on 18.09.2020.
The judge said that the Special Prosecutor, FIA was correct that the suspension of the sentence imposed on the petitioner does not wipeout his conviction but it ought to be borne in mind that when the appellate Court suspended the petitioner’s sentence vide order dated 01.04.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. No.107/2024 in Crl. Appeal No75/2024, it was solely on the basis of the no-objection to the suspension of the sentence by the counsel for the NAB and not as a result of an inter-parte hearing.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments