ISLAMABAD: Imran Khan was granted protective bail by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday, a day after the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) chairman was charged under the anti-terrorism act following accusations of threats to police and a magistrate during a fiery speech to supporters at the weekend.
The charges came over a speech Khan gave in Islamabad on Saturday in which he vowed to sue the Islamabad police chief and a female judge, and alleged that Shehbaz Gill, his chief of staff, had been tortured and sexually abused after his arrest.
Khan was booked a day later under Section 7 (punishment for acts of terrorism) of the Anti-terrorism Act, 1997.
The use of anti-terrorism laws as the basis of cases against political leaders is not uncommon in Pakistan. The three governments of Nawaz Sharif from 1990 to 2018 introduced the notorious trend and used the laws against his opponents and critics.
On Monday, Fawad Chaudhry, senior vice president of the party, confirmed the request for interim bail has been made to the high court. Babar Awan and Faisal Chaudhry, counsels for Khan, filed the petition on behalf of the former prime minister.
اس وقت اسلام آباد ہائیکورٹ میں عمران خان کی ضمانت کی درخواست دائر ہو چکی ہے،شہباز گل کے مقدمے میں دلائل سنے جا چکے ہیں شاہ محمودُ قریشی صاحب کے ساتھ فیصلے کا انتظار کر رہے ہیں،کل رات سے تحریک انصاف کی قیادت ملک بھر سے اسلام آباد پہنچ رہی ہے پاکستانیوں کی محبت کا شکریہ بہت شکریہ
— Ch Fawad Hussain (@fawadchaudhry) August 22, 2022
A two-member bench comprising Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Justice Babar Sattar, which took up the petition, however, asked the former prime minister to approach the relevant forum, an anti-terrorism court (ATC).
At this, they were informed that Khan residence in Bani Gala had been “surrounded” and “he cannot even approach the relevant court”. The counsels urged the court to grant Khan protective bail so that the ATC could be approached.
The judges then approved the protective bail until Thursday, directing Khan to approach the relevant court by then.
THE PETITION
The petition stated that Khan was a “target of the ruling PDM (Pakistan Democratic Movement) for his fearless criticism, and extremely bold and blunt stance against corruption and corrupt politicians”.
“And to achieve this malicious agenda, acting in a most unfortunate and clumsy manner, a false and frivolous complaint has been registered against him by the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) police at the behest of the incumbent government,” it added.
The plea further alleged the government had decided to “cross all limits” to arrest Khan “under false accusations” and was “hell-bent to sort out the petitioner and his party at all costs”.
The government, in an illegal effort to settle a political score, has decided to “illegally and unlawfully victimise” the petitioner, it said, adding the government had registered 17 first information reports (FIR) against Khan.
It further said the case against Khan was “politically motivated”, in which the PTI chair had been “falsely” involved with “mala fide intention and ulterior motives to humiliate” him.
Moreover, the plea highlighted the case was registered after an “unexplained inordinate delay of 24 hours”. “The contents of the FIR reflect that the alleged offence is not made out. The case in hand is of further inquiry”.
The plea contended the case was based on “surmises and conjectures” and that no evidence was available on record against Khan in connection with the case.
It also contended that there was no “direct or indirect” evidence available on record against Khan in the case, which created “serious doubt in the prosecution story”.
It went on to say that Khan was a respectable citizen and “a sheer apprehension of his imminent arrest would cause humiliation and unjustified harassment”.
It stated that there was “no likelihood” of Khan absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence if granted protective bail.
Khan has an unblemished track record and has never been implicated in any criminal activity, the plea said, adding that he was ready to join the investigation as and when required.
The petition said that Khan was also ready to furnish a “solvent surety bond” when required.
The state was nominated as the respondent in the plea.
