Imran Khan’s protective bail is subject to an in-person appearance before the LHC.

ISLAMABAD/LAHORE: The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan will be granted protective bail if he comes in person before the Lahore High Court (LHC).

Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh made the comments while hearing Khan’s request for protective bail in a case filed against him for protesting outside the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) headquarters.

The PTI head petitioned the Supreme Court after an anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Islamabad denied him bail in the same matter earlier in the day, citing Khan’s failure to appear in person before it.

The outgoing prime minister, who was deposed in a no-confidence vote, was arrested in the case in October last year, after the ECP issued the Toshakhana judgement, igniting nationwide demonstrations. Khan had been released on medical bail after being wounded in an assassination attempt at a rally in Wazirabad on November 3.

Not only had the ATC called Khan, but a banking court had also ordered him to appear in the banned financing issue. The Islamabad High Court (IHC) ordered the financial court to postpone its decision until February 22 – a breath of comfort for the ex-prime minister.

The LHC said that it would provide Khan’s protection and directed his lawyer to assure the PTI chief’s attendance tomorrow (Thursday), since the first rule in a protective bail case was an in-person appearance.

Hearing at the LHC
At the start of the hearing, Khan’s legal counsel said that the PTI chief’s medical report indicated that he was unable to move.

“Khan wants to appear at the relevant court,” he said, “but the doctor says he won’t be able to walk for three weeks.”

Khan’s attorney then asked the court for protective bail on medical grounds.

According to Justice Saleem, “the attendance of the suspect is required even in the case of a protective bail.”

He further said that, given the situation, the PTI chairman may arrive at the court in an ambulance.

The judge added, “In theory, I should reject this petition, but I am making a concession,” asserting that the law was the same for everyone regardless of power or status.

Khan’s lawyer then raised “security concerns,” and the court promised to deploy police to bring Khan to court to secure his safety.

“The law is stated,” the judge said, “the suspect must come before the court. If you want, I may urge the Punjab IG to assure Khan’s safety.”

He then ordered that Khan be brought before the court by 8 p.m. today, citing Khan’s history of working late. The court then deferred the hearing for a short period of time.

When the hearing resumed, PTI Senior Vice President Fawad Chaudhry stood before the LHC and requested permission to address from Justice Sheikh.

In response, the judge said that since Fawad is not wearing a lawyer’s attire, he is not permitted to speak in the courtroom.

The ex-prime minister’s lawyer then launched his arguments, telling the court that the IHC had also given him medical reprieve since physicians had not yet cleared him to go.

The judge then said that the first criteria for protective bail is that the defendant must appear in court to request bail. The lawyer said that his client will be presented through video connection.

“Implement the process, but if you promise to bring your client in the morning, I will defer the hearing until tomorrow,” the judge said.

“Whether you bring him on a stretcher or an ambulance, it doesn’t matter, but I will not give bail until he appears in person,” Justice Sheikh remarked.

Fawad intervened and requested that the court fix the date for hearing arguments for tomorrow. The LHC rejected, stating that only if Khan’s in-person attendance is assured would the hearing be deferred.

The lawyer then requested permission from the court to confer with his client. The hearing was subsequently delayed till 8:15 p.m. by the court.

When the hearing was resumed, Justice Sheikh inquired again, “Why can’t he come before the court?” Khan was not there.

The lawyer informed the court that physicians had advised his client not to walk. The court then questioned the lawyer who had requested he walk.

The lawyer contended that there were not just medical limits, but also security issues. The court said that he will see to it that Khan receives the necessary protection. The hearing was subsequently postponed till tomorrow by the court.

ATC hearing and bail denial
During the hearing, Khan’s counsel, Babar Awan, said that the extra sessions judge had granted the PTI head temporary release till February 27.

Awan asked the court to extend Khan’s release, claiming that Khan attempted but was unable to go. “Imran Khan never sought to flee the nation or the court,” he claimed.

The court said that if Khan was granted remedy for a gunshot injury, the other defendants should be granted relief as well. At this point, Awan said that the court should give his client one final opportunity. “I am prepared to offer a Rs10,000 surety bond,” he continued.

“Please give me orders to drop the bail request,” the lawyer replied. If the bail petition is not withdrawn, the ATC judge said that the court would issue a judgement.

After more than an hour of waiting for the PTI head, who was on temporary release, ATC Judge Raja Jawad Abbas Hassan delivered the judgement to rescind Khan’s bail.

The banking court has been ordered not to issue a decision.
The banking court had also summoned Khan at 3:30 p.m. because his bail in the restricted financing case was due to expire. However, the PTI head petitioned the IHC to prevent the court from delivering a ruling.

The IHC has asked the banking court not to rule on PTI head Khan’s bail application until February 22.

The court had ordered Khan to appear before it in the forbidden financing matter by 3:30 p.m. today, but the former prime minister disputed the decision in the high court.

The PTI chief’s petition was considered by a two-judge panel consisting of Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri.

Khan’s counsel, Barrister Salman Safdar, informed the bench at the hearing that the banking court had granted temporary release on October 17. He went on to say that the PTI chairman was fired at during the lengthy march in Wazirabad on November 3.

“Exemption was sought six times after the event and twice before the incident,” Khan’s attorney stated. He went on to say that his client never shied away from appearing in court, and that the medical reasons and facts were there in front of everyone.

After hearing the arguments, the court granted a stay order, preventing the banking court from making a judgement until February 22. The judge also requested that the PTI chief’s lawyer provide a new medical report at the next hearing.

What occurred at the banking court?
When Judge Rakhshanda Shaheen arrived at the court today, she asked the staff to vacate the room due to the large number of persons there. The judge then called a recess so that the courtroom could be cleared.

When the session restarted, Khan’s counsel, Barrister Safdar, began arguing for a three-week extension of the PTI chief’s temporary bail.

The lawyer informed the court that his client was over 70 years old but in good health since he exercised daily. He also said that a young person recovering from a gunshot wounds takes three months.

Safdar further said that his client was excused from biometric verification owing to his advanced age. He then asked the court to allow the former prime minister an extension of three weeks to appear in the case. The lawyer also revealed the PTI chief’s x-rays.

“We’re simply asking for three weeks so he can stand on his own. If our petition is not heard, it must be documented that our medical [evaluation] is incorrect,” Safdar said. He further said that the court must declare that the PTI chairman was not injured.

Before concluding his remarks, the lawyer told the court that his client was not present in Islamabad at the time.

After Khan’s lawyer finished his remarks, co-accused Tariq Shafi’s counsel, Mian Ali Ashfaq, took the stand.

According to Ashfaq, a criminal case cannot be initiated in the forbidden financing matter. “Even if the first information report (FIR) is accepted, no conviction will result,” Ashfaq asserted. He also inquired if there was any declaration or paper stating that the monies were forbidden.

He said that a mosque is not required to inquire about the contributors’ sources of money. The attorney went on to say that even if Arif Naqvi, the creator of Abraaj, committed a crime, how can the party that collected the monies be labelled criminal?

“It is suspected that Arif Naqvi committed the crime while overseas. What are we doing here now that Arif Naqvi has been sentenced there? ” inquired the lawyer. He also stated that the FBI was withholding information.

Shafi’s lawyer questioned how Shafi, Imran Khan, and Amir Kayani were to blame if Naqvi defaulted overseas. At this point, Judge Shaheen intervened and warned the lawyer that his arguments were erroneous since the case was solely about bail.

“I’m not making any observations; this is just a bail case,” the judge stated. Following the conclusion of the arguments of the PTI chief’s and co-counsels, accused’s special prosecutor Raja Rizwan Abbasi gave his arguments.

According to Abbasi, it was argued in court that no one is questioned if they donate money to a mosque. “It only occurs in Pakistan; it does not happen in the UAE.”

After hearing from all of the counsel, the judge ordered Khan to appear in court by today.

“If Imran Khan does not come, the law will take its course,” said Judge Shaheen.

When the session started, Khan’s counsel said that the high court had barred this court from giving instructions on the bail petition. The judge responded that she had not received any orders in this issue.

The counsel requested that the court postpone the order until 4 p.m. The judge responded that she would if this order had been granted, but that she would publish her judgement otherwise.

“A judgement on the bail plea will be issued if the court does not grant a stay order,” the judge stated.

The banking court then requested a copy of the IHC’s stay order. The judge said that the copy would be confirmed once it is received by the court. The hearing was postponed till then.

When the court reopened, Judge Shaheen acknowledged that she had received the ruling from IHC and postponed the decision on the bail petition.