LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Thursday set aside physical remand of former PTI Chairman Imran Khan in 12 cases related to May 09 incidents.

The court also declared the notification permitting Imran’s appearance in court via video link as null and void.

The court had asked the prosecutor to justify the need of Imran’s physical remand.

Earlier, Imran’s counsel argued that the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) while granting physical remand did not examine the record properly.

He said Imran was already in jail and under the law a plea of remand cannot be allowed in the absence of the accused or his presence via video link. He said there is no such compulsion that the accused cannot be produced before the court. It is the responsibility of the government to provide him security, the counsel added.

The counsel said the government is not producing Imran Khan before the court on a feeble ground of security risk and seeking his physical remand.

He said that police did not move in nine cases for about one and half year and kept mum for 170 days in three others.

He said the law was not considered while granting physical remand and asked the court to declare the impugned remand order as null and void. The court asked about the number of cases the ex-premier was nominated in.

The Imran’s counsel explained that there were two categories of cases, one where he was nominated by name and the other where he was nominated through supplementary statements.

The prosecutor said that they want to investigate the PTI leader regarding the footages they found of the May 9 riots. The prosecutor said that Imran would not be taken away from the jail and be investigated there due to security reasons.

The prosecutor, therefore, asked the court to reject the requests of the former prime minister as the police have to recover mobile phones from which tweets were made to incite violence.

The prosecutor also claimed that the investigation would be impossible without the recovery of mobile phone through which the tweets were made and WhatsApp messages were sent. The court observed, how, would the mobile be recovered when the suspect is in jail. Later, the court adjourned the proceedings for 10 minutes.

On the resumption of hearing again, the prosecutor presented the record of all cases registered against Imran and a report of the progress in those cases with the details of the social media accounts of Imran Khan.

He also read tweets and said that a specific narrative was created. The court, however, observed that these days more serious threats are being hurled at judges than the tweets you read.

The prosecutor said that the officer of the security branch has given a statement that Imran Khan had issued instructions that if the Rangers or the army arrested him, the country should be shut down and attacked GHQ. The prosecutor repeated his assertion and the court rejected him again. The court remarked proving charges of spreading chaos is most difficult.

The court observed it would have been a crime if he led the attacks. If the petitioner gave a call for protest, how would it be a crime, the court questioned the prosecutor. The court also said the judge of the anti-terrorism court must had ascertained, “Whether the remand was justified or not”.

The court also referring to Imran’s refusal to have his polygraph, photogrammetry and vice matching tests said, if the petitioner does not have any tests conducted, then he will be responsible for its consequences.” The court wondered why there was a need for physical remand for a polygraph test. “You have to conduct some tests for 15 to 20 minutes. Why do you need a physical remand for this?” the court asked.

The court when asked the prosecutor if attempts had been made previously to investigate the case, he replied that Imran Khan said in writing that he will not join the investigation and added he would have his statement recorded in presence of his lawyers. The prosecutor asked the court again to reject petitioner’s application. The court, however, after hearing both the sides rejected the prosecution’s plea.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024