ISLAMABAD:
Former prime minister Imran Khan has challenged a Lahore High Court (LHC) order rejecting his bail pleas, contending that prosecution has adopted three different stances to link him with the alleged conspiracy of May 9, 2023 rioting incidents, all of which were rejected by different courts.
The PTI founder through his counsel Salman Safdar filed a petition against the LHC order in the Supreme Court. A division bench of the high court led by Justice Shahbaz Ali Rizvi on June 24 held that Imran was allegedly involved in the rioting conspiracy in view of the testimonies of two police officials.
Commenting on the order, the petition said the prosecution repeatedly failed to establish any credible nexus between Imran Khan and the alleged occurrence as narrated in the FIR.
According to the petition, the prosecution in its attempts to link the petitioner with the purported acts of conspiracy and abetment resorted to three conflicting versions, each differing in terms of the alleged date, time, location, and witnesses of abetment.
It said all three versions have been judicially disbelieved either by the anti-terrorism courts (ATCs) or by the LHC. It noted that during proceedings for pre-arrest bail before the ATC-III in Lahore, the prosecution belatedly claimed that a police official, Hassam Afzal, allegedly overheard a conspiracy at Zaman Park.
It claimed that this event happened two days before May 9on May 7. The prosecution also claimed that another Inspector Asmat Kamal overheard the abetment at Chakri Rest Area five days prior to the occurrenceon May 4, 2023
“This version, however, was discredited due to the prosecution’s failure to justify the delayed disclosure of such critical information and was consequently rejected by the learned Special Judge ATC-III in Lahore who confirmed the pre-arrest bails of the petitioner on March 1, 2024 in FIR No 366/23 and 1078/23.”
The petition said that after the collapse of its first narrative, the prosecution advanced a second version during the hearing of criminal revision before the LHC, contending that Imran Khan allegedly incited the acts through media statements.
However, the prosecution could not produce any objectionable or incriminating material to substantiate this claim, which led the LHC to reject this version as well.
Subsequently, the state sought to rely on the statements of three new witnessesincluding PTI leaders Sadaqat Abbasi and Wasiq Qayyumas fresh evidence to support its third version of the conspiracy.
“This final attempt too was found wanting and was expressly disbelieved by the ATC-I, Rawalpindi, which discharged the co-accused Bushra Imran through a well-reasoned order dated 20.08.2024.
“The prosecution’s continued failure to present coherent, consistent, and credible evidence after multiple opportunities clearly brings the case within the realm of further inquiry, making the petitioner entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) CrPC 1898,” it said.
The petition stated that despite the rejection of all three prosecutorial versions by various competent forums, the LHC on June 24 declined Imran’s bail while relying solely on the statements of the two police officialsInspector Asmat Kamal and ASI Hassam Afzal.
“These very statements, however, had already been judicially disbelieved in earlier proceedings where both pre-arrest and post-arrest bails were granted to the petitioner,” it said.
It said the reliance placed by the LHC on previously discarded and delayed police statements amounted to a clear inconsistency in judicial appreciation of evidence.
“These contradictory views of the courts below, especially in a case where the only allegation is of abetment and conspiracy, further reinforce that the matter warrants deeper scrutiny and falls squarely within the parameters of further inquiry,” it said.
According to the petition, in the order, LHC attempted to justify the delay in the statements of the witnesses by relying on an explanation furnished by the prosecutor, who claimed that the information regarding abatement was promptly communicated and brought on police record on May 4, 2023.
“Shockingly, this explanation had never been offered before any judicial forum neither during the proceedings of pre-arrest or post-arrest bails before the learned ATCs, nor during the remand hearings, nor even before the LHC during the remand hearing or the Supreme Court in earlier stages.
“This new explanation appears for the first time in the impugned order, without any evidentiary foundation or prosecutorial assertion to support it.
“The reliance placed on such a retrospective and unsubstantiated statement of the prosecutor constitutes a manifest error on the part of the learned division bench,” it added.
It said the LHC is inadvertently filling the lacunae left by the prosecutiona task clearly outside the scope of judicial discretion in bail matters and undermines the fairness of the reasoning applied in the impugned order.
The petition stated that Imran Khan has been maliciously implicated in the instant case as part of a calculated and politically motivated design to prolong his incarceration and subject him to harassment, and tarnish his public image.
It said the circumstances demonstrate that the petitioner’s arrest was never genuinely required in the cases pertaining to May 9. This was evident from the police’s conspicuous inaction over a prolonged period of fourteen months in implicating and arresting the Petitioner in this case.
The petition said the police knew the whereabouts of the petitionersAdiala Jailbut made no meaningful attempt to effect his arrest. “This lack of urgency or interest on the part of the investigating agency strongly supports the inference that the arrest was not necessitated by the merits of the case, but was rather a tool of oppression, thereby further justifying the grant of post-arrest bail”
The petition said Imran Khan was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail on the well-established principle of consistency, as affirmed through various judgments of the apex court.
“A critical and directly relevant bail order passed in favour of a co-accused, Mr. Ejaz Chaudhary, by [the SC] on May 2, 2025, during the pendency of the present bail matter before the [LHC], appears to have escaped the attention of the learned division bench.
“The said order was rendered by a three-member bench headed by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, wherein post-arrest bail was granted to Mr Ejaz Chaudhary despite allegations of conspiracy concerning the events of 9th May.
“In para 5 of the said judgment, this [SC] expressed concern over the prosecution’s failure to justify the delay in recording the supplementary statement of the complainant
“Further, in para 6, it was held that on a tentative assessment of the record, the case against the co-accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) CrPC 1898.”
The petition highlighted that the ATC-III in Lahore confirmed Imran’s pre-arrest bail in two May 9 cases through a detailed order on March 1, 2024, followed by the grant of post-arrest bail in four additional cases on November 8, 204.
“These orders, based on similar allegations and the same prosecutorial evidence, have not been set aside by any Superior Court and have attained finality.”
It said Imran Khan has already been granted bail in 21 criminal cases arising out of the May 9 incidents, all of which relied on substantially identical evidence.
“These consistent judicial findings strongly support his entitlement to post-arrest bail on the ground of parity and further inquiry, particularly in the face of a case fabricated at the behest of political adversaries.
“Furthermore, both [the LHC] and the [ATCs] at Lahore and Rawalpindi have, in multiple proceedings, recorded observations that cast serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative,” it said.
