The court holds a decision over Imran's bail in the May 9 riot proceedings. On the ninth, a decision will be made. There is no witness to support the PTI founder's incitement to violence, according to the ex-PM's attorney. LAHORE : In three instances pertaining to the May 9 riots, Imran Khan, the founding chairman of the Pakistan Turk Party, filed bail requests. An anti-terrorism court (ATC) deferred its decision on Saturday. The defense dismissed claims of conspiracy, while the prosecution compared the protests of the previous year to the attacks on Capitol Hill in the United States. Attorney Salman Safdar, representing Mr. Khan, said during the closing arguments that his client had been deprived of justice for a full year.
The Lahore High Court had ordered the trial court to record the suspect's attendance via video link from jail, Judge Khalid Arshad pointed out, noting that there had been delays for a number of reasons, some of which were brought on by the petitioner's attorney. The judge declared that the court would try one last time to get Imran Khan to attend by video link. According to jail officials' confirmation via WhatsApp, Mr. Khan was detained at Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi, according to a prosecutor. The petitioner's attorney was subsequently given instructions by the judge to make his case in the Jinnah House attack case.
Barrister Safdar contended that Imran Khan was unlawfully detained and asked for bail in the Al-Qadir Trust case at the Islamabad High Court on May 9, 2023. According to him, the events of May 9 were a response to Mr. Khan's arrest, and he was only made aware of the attacks on state institutions when they were brought before the Supreme Court. In front of the Supreme Court and the IHC, he emphasized that Imran Khan denounced the attacks of May 9. The attorney emphasized that, because he was in detention on May 9, Mr. Khan stated that he was unaware of the May 9 events and that the Supreme Court had ruled on May 11 that his arrest and physical remand were unlawful.
"Those who illegally detained Imran Khan," the attorney said in response to Judge Arshad's question about who had violated law and order prior to May 9. Barrister Safdar pointed out that Imran Khan, the 71-year-old former prime minister, was facing hundreds of politically driven charges despite having no criminal record. He maintained that, rather than 71, persistent offenders often commit their first crime at 17. With Mr. Khan being taken into jail on May 9 and released on May 11, the lawyer contended that there was no evidence to support the claim that Mr. Khan encouraged violence and asked when he may have planned. He added that Mr. Khan asked his followers to abstain from violence following his release and denounced the protests.
-on-Saturday-reserved-343660124.jpg)
According to the prosecution's record, which included Pemra's evidence and remarks made by PTI leaders on social media, a conspiracy was planned in a Zoom meeting at Imran Khan's Zaman Park home in Lahore, Judge Arshad found. Zman Park and Zoom meetings were the sites of distinct plots, according to prosecutor Rana Azhar, and both had been verified by witnesses. Prior to his departure for the Islamabad court, Imran Khan made a claim in a video that went viral on social media, claiming to be fighting for "haqeeqi azadi" (actual freedom). Special Prosecutor Rana Abdul Jabbar made this addition. "This self-proclaimed Quaid-i-Azam and Allama Iqbal incited the attack on Jinnah House," the special prosecutor stated, making reference to Mr. Khan.
In response to the prosecution's comments, the PTI attorneys in the courtroom became enraged, with Barrister Safdar pleading with the prosecutor to concentrate on the matter. Judge Arshad also urged the prosecution to confine their arguments to pertinent issues. According to Mr. Jabbar, everyone in the crowd—including those providing remote guidance through contemporary communication tools—is considered an accomplice in mob crimes. He insisted that everyone involved in the attack on Jinnah House, including the facilitators, was guilty.
Facilitators are frequently absent from crime scenes, according to Judge Arshad.Comparing the attack on Jinnah House to the events on Capitol Hill, the special prosecutor urged the court to reject Mr. Khan's bail requests. Barrister Safdar questioned the silence of police officers who were aware of the purported scheme beforehand. Since "this is now a case for acquittal," he contended, Mr. Khan's temporary bail has become less important. The judge declared July 9 to be the delivery date of the decision regarding the bail petitions.
