ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), Friday, barred the Islamabad police from arresting Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan in the Toshakhana case.

A single bench of Chief Justice Aamer Farooq heard Imran’s petition filed through Khawaja Haris Ahmed, Barrister Goher Ali Khan, Intazar Hussian Panjutha, Syed Muhammad Ali Bokhari, Naeem Haider Panjutha, and others.

In his application, Khan sought interim relief by way of suspension of warrants of arrest in order to facilitate the petitioner to appear on the date in question voluntarily. Justice Aamer in his written order said: “The petitioner shall not be arrested pursuant to the warrants provided that he appears before the trial court on 18.03.2023 within the court hours.

“The petitioner shall also ensure the law and order situation is not disturbed in Islamabad Capital Territory on his appearance before the Trial Court. The District Administration, ICT, as well as, the Inspector General of Police, Islamabad shall ensure providing proper and adequate security measures to the petitioner and all the concerned,” said the IHC CJ.

He further said that the police, as well as, District Administration shall frame SOPs/ lay down parameters for allowing only a few persons to be present near the court premises/ compound to avoid any untoward incident.

Through the instant petition, the PTI chairman challenged the court’s order dated 16.03.2023, whereby, the request on part of the petitioner to suspend/ recall the warrants of arrest was turned down.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner contended that the reasons which prevailed with the trial court in dismissing the request of the petitioner are erroneous. He submitted that the undertaking as earlier shown to the Court was filed before the trial court along with an affidavit to the effect that the undertaking is genuine and authentic, but the same could not persuade the trial court in recalling the warrants of arrest.

The counsel for the petitioner was confronted, as to the status of the undertaking and affidavit, to which he responded that undertaking by the petitioner tantamount to statement before the court that he shall appear before the Court on 18.03.2023.

Again, the counsel for the petitioner was asked that in case of violation of the said statement what would be the effect and whether this amounted to misstatement warranting contempt of court. All the counsels for the petitioner conceded to the position that the law shall take its course accordingly.

At this juncture, the counsel for the petitioner was directed to implead the Inspector General of Police, ICT and the state which was accordingly done in the court.

Then, the court issued notices to the respondents for 21.03.2023 and deferred the hearing.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023