Islamabad:
Former Prime Minister Imran Khan has challenged a Lahore High Court (LHC) order who rejects his guarantee care, claiming that prosecution has adopted three different attitudes to connect him with the alleged conspiracy of May 9, 2023 rebel events, all of which were rejected by different courts.
The PTI founder through his lawyer Salman Safdar filed a petition against the LHC department in the Supreme Court. A division bench at the High Court led by Justice Shahbaz Ali Rizvi on June 24 found that Imran was allegedly involved in the rebel conspiracy considering the testimony of two police officers.
In comments on the order, the petition said the prosecution repeatedly failed to establish any credible Nexus between Imran Khan and the alleged event as told in FIR.
According to the petition, the prosecution resorted to his attempts to connect the petitioner with the alleged conspiracy actions and monkey to three contradictory versions, each of which was different in terms of the alleged date, time, location and witnesses of monkey.
It said all three versions have become legally unbelieved either by the anti-terrorism courts (ATCs) or by LHC. It noted that the prosecutor’s office under procedures for bail before the occasion of ATC-III in Lahore claimed the prosecution of late that a police officer, Hassam Afzal, allegedly overheard a conspiracy in Zaman Park.
It claimed that this event happened two days before May 9 – on May 7th. The Prosecutor
“However, this version was discredited because of the prosecutor’s failure to justify the delayed disclosure of such critical information and was therefore rejected by the learned special judge ATC-III in Lahore, which confirmed the petitioner’s pre-formation of at March 1, 2024 in FIR No. 366/23 and 1078/23.”
The petition said the prosecution after the collapse of his first narrative highlighted another version during the consultation of criminal revision before LHC, claiming that Imran Khan allegedly encouraged the actions through media statements.
However, the Settlement Manager could not produce any critical or criminal material to substantiate this claim, causing LHC to reject this version as well.
Then the state tried to rely on statements from three new witnesses – including PTI leaders Sadaqat Abbasi and Wasiq Qayyum – as fresh proof of supporting its third version of the conspiracy.
“Also, this last attempt was found missing and became explicitly unbelievers by ATC-I, Rawalpindi, which derived the Co-accused Bushra Imran through a well-founded order dated 20.08.2024.
“The prosecutor’s continued non -compliance with coherent, consistent and credible evidence, after more possibilities clearly bring the case within the field for further investigations, making the county entitled to admit bail after the occasion according to section 497 (2) CRPC 1898,” said.
The petition stated that despite the rejection of all three prosecutors of various competent forums, LHC rejected IMRAN’s bail on June 24, while he relying solely on the statements of the two police officers – Inspector Asmat Kamal and Asi Hassam Afzal.
“However, these very declarations had already become legal disbelief in previous procedures, where both pre-arrest and post-arrest bails were awarded to the petitioner,” it said.
It said the dependence that LHC had on previously discarded and delayed the police statements was a clear inconsistency in legal understanding of evidence.
“These contradictory views on the courts below, especially in a case where the only claim is of abetment and conspiracy, further strengthens that the case guarantees deeper control and falls square within the parameters of further investigation,” it said.
According to the petition, LHC in the order tried to justify the delay in the witnesses’ statements by relying on an explanation provided by the prosecutor who claimed that the information about reduction was immediately communicated and set up the police record on May 4, 2023.
“Choplashing, this explanation had never been offered before any legal forum neither during the case of anordel’s or post-arrest bails before taught ATCs, nor during the custody hearing, nor before the LHC under the custody or Supreme Court in previous stages.
“This new explanation appears for the first time in the intended order without any evidence or prosecution to support it.
“The addiction placed on such a retrospective and non -built -in statement from the prosecutor constitutes an obvious error from the learned division bench,” it added.
It said that LHC unintentionally fills the lacunas left behind by the prosecution – a task clearly beyond the extent of legal estimate in bail issues and undermines justice of the reason used in the intended order.
The petition stated that Imran Khan has been vicious implicated in the immediate case as part of a calculated and politically motivated design to extend his imprisonment and expose him to harassment and steal his public image.
It said the circumstances show that the arrest’s arrest was never required in the cases relating to May 9. This is evidenced by police conspicuous inaction over a longer period of fourteen months of implanting and arresting the petitioner in this case.
The petition said the police knew where the petries’ whereabouts – adiala prison – but made no meaningful attempt to carry out his arrest. “This lack of urgency or interest on the part of the Investigation Agency strongly supports the conclusion that the arrest was not necessitated by the benefits of the case, but was rather an oppression tool, which further justified the grant of bail after arrest”
The petition said that Imran Khan was entitled to the award of bail on the occasion of the well -established principle of consistency, as confirmed through different judgments from the point of view.
“A critical and directly relevant bail order went in favor of a co-appeal, Mr. Ejaz Chaudhary, of [the SC] on May 2, 2025, under the current bail dependence before [LHC]seems to have avoided the attention of the learned division bench.
“The order mentioned was placed by a three -members bench led by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, where bail was awarded to Mr Ejaz Chaudhary, despite allegations of the events of the events on May 9.
“In point 5 of the aerial sentence, this [SC] expressed concern about the prosecution’s failure to justify the delay in the registration of the complainant’s supplementary statement
“In paragraph 6, it was also determined that the case against the co-accused by a preliminary assessment of the post against the co-accused fell within the framework of further investigations in accordance with section 497 (2), CRPC 1898.”
The petition emphasized that ATC-III in Lahore confirmed IMRAN’s bail before declaring in two cases of May two through a detailed order on March 1, 2024, followed by the award of bail after four additional cases on November 8, 204.
“These orders, which are based on similar allegations and the same prosecution certificates, are not set aside by any overall court and have obtained finality.”
It said Imran Khan has already received bail in 21 criminal cases that occur as a result of the events on May 9, all of which were dependent on significant identical evidence.
“These consistent judicial conclusions strongly support his right to bail on occasion due to parity and further investigation, especially in the light of a case made at the request of political opponents.
“Besides, both [the LHC] and [ATCs] In Lahore and Rawal Pindy, in several procedures, observations have recorded serious doubts about the credibility of the prosecutor’s narrative, “it said.
