On Thursday, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) dismissed objections raised by the Registrar’s office regarding the appeal filed by PTI founder Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, requesting the suspension of their sentencing in the 190 million-pound case.
A division bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif from the IHC heard the arguments related to the case as well as the objections presented by the IHC Registrar’s office.
At the hearing, Salman Akram Raja, Latif Khosa, and Niazullah Niazi were present in front of the court, whereas Imran’s sisters along with his party leaders were also in attendance at the courthouse.
Khosa adopted the stnace that such objections were never raised in any high court of Lahore, Islamabad and any other.
In response, Justice Sardar Dogar instructed the removal of all objections and commanded that diary numbers be assigned to the petitions. Additionally, he stated that once the petitions have been allocated their respective diary numbers, these cases will be scheduled for hearings.
The founders of Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI), Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi, have petitioned the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to suspend their sentences in connection with a £190 million case.
They shifted the case via their attorney Barrister Salman Safdar and named the state and Chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB) as respondents.
Attorney Salman argued in the petition that the petitioners had been found guilty of corruption and corrupt practices under sections 9(a)(ii), (iv), and (vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, by the Accountability Court (I) Islamabad via their ruling from January 17, 2025. Additionally, Imran received a punishment under section 10(a) of the same ordinance: he must serve 14 years of rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine totaling Rs. 1,000,000/-. In this petition, they requested that this court suspend both their conviction and sentencing until the higher courts finalize their primary appeals at the IHC. Counsel asserted that the petitioner feels deeply distressed due to what appears to be a politically motivated smear campaign aimed solely at keeping him imprisoned indefinitely.
He further mentioned that the claims made against the petitioner lack substantiation based on the evidence presented throughout the course of the trial, thereby dismissing the unfounded and trivial charges. Consequently, the petitioner seeks the honorable court’s gracious consideration for granting ‘Suspension of Sentence’. Safdar highlighted that the petitioner, Mr. Imran, at 72 years old and formerly serving as Prime Minister, received his sentencing merely to sideline him politically. It should be noted that the Division Bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) had previously endorsed the petitioner’s post-arrest bail on May 14, 2024, acknowledging the insubstantiality of these allegations.
He further mentioned that the court has granted post-arrest bail to Imran, recognizing that the legal framework agreement detailing the transaction between the Malik Riaz family and NCA, UK, does not appear in the records. The court drew parallels with the provisions outlined in Sections 426(1) and 497 of the CrPC, 1898.
The counsel argued that the NAB Reference No. 19/2023 resulted from a continuous and unending series of political persecutions instigated by rival politicians. They also stated that the Al-Qadir Trust Case and the ensuing convictions represent the third effort by NAB officials to involve the petitioners in a groundless and unjustified case, which was part of a meticulously planned conspiracy.
He further argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish any monetary gain on behalf of petitioners and no funds or money was ever transferred to personal account of the Petitioner.
Attorney Safdar argued that the NAB targeted only the petitioner and his spouse for prosecution, omitting six other individuals involved. This he contends constitutes selective enforcement. Furthermore, the lawyer pointed out that the sentencing handed down to Imran in the Toshakhana (I) case has already been annulled by this same court, emphasizing that they have not misused their granted leniency.
He went on to say that the verdict and punishment are unwarranted, unreasonable, and unsound at first glance. Given that there is little chance of an imminent hearing of the primary appeal, the petitioner requested leniency to ‘Stay the Sentence’ imposed via the judgment from January 17, 2025.
Hence, he pleaded for the suspension of the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court through the impugned order dated January 17, 2025. He requested that the petitioners might be granted release until the conclusion of Criminal Appeal Number 63 of 2025.
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc.
Syndigate.info
).
Leave a Reply