- One-and-a-half years had passed since Imran’s arrest, so question of physical remand can’t arise now: Justice Kakar
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday declared as “ineffective” the Punjab government’s petition seeking the remand of PTI founder and former premier Imran Khan, ruling that the provincial government could approach the trial court for remand if it so chooses.
The Punjab government had approached the apex court to secure the PTI founder’s remand in over a dozen cases related to the May 9 riots, after the Lahore High Court set aside these petitions in July 2024.
A three-member SC bench, headed by Justice Hashim Kakar, heard the petitions.
During proceedings, Justice Kakar remarked that one-and-a-half years had passed since Imran’s arrest, so the question of physical remand cannot arise now.
When asked by Kakar why the provincial government was seeking remand, the government’s counsel replied that they needed to conduct three tests.
“The accused has to undergo a photographic, polygraphic and voice matching test,” the lawyer responded, adding that Imran was being uncooperative in carrying out the tests.
Kakar noted that the petition sought physical remand and no tests, reiterating that since a year-and-a-half had passed, physical remand could not be granted.
Replying to the lawyer’s claim that Imran was being uncooperative, Kakar asked, “He is in your custody, how can he not cooperate?
“The trial court granted physical remand, but the High Court rejected the trial court’s decision with detailed reasons. Now, this petition has become ineffective and physical remand cannot be given,” he said.
Justice Salahuddin Panhor asked the government’s counsel whether they had a USB with evidence against Imran, urging them to have it forensically examined if they do.
PTI lawyer Salman Safdar maintained that the prosecution had approached the trial court for 30 days of remand without Imran even being presented before the courtroom, attending the hearing by video link.
“They granted remand without Imran being present. The High Court rejected this decision,” Safdar argued. “The prosecution did not conduct any tests nor carry out any arrests for 14 months after the FIR (first information report) was filed.
“When my client was acquitted in the cipher and iddat cases, he was arrested in this case. The LHC was not satisfied by the prosecution’s request for a polygraph test,” he added.
Justice Kakar remarked on a case he heard “a few days ago”, where a man was on death row for murder and had a hearing after eight years, where he was acquitted “with honour”.
“Have you ever been in the death cell?” Kakar asked the government’s lawyer.
Justice Panhor said, “Such tests have never been conducted in any case of murder or adultery. We expect you to show the same agility in a common man’s case like in this one.”
