ISLAMABAD: An additional district and sessions judge on Tuesday directed PTI chairman and former premier Imran Khan to furnish Rs20,000 surety bonds to ensure his presence before court on Feb 7 for indictment in the Toshakhana case.

The court, however, gra­n­ted Mr Khan a one-time exemption from appearance and extended his interim bail to Feb 10 at the request of PTI lawyer Babar Awan. He app­rised Judge Zafar Iqbal that the PTI chief was unable to walk due to injuries on both legs, as doctors had advised him complete rest for a month.

At the outset when the court resumed proceedings on complaint of the Ele­ction Commission of Pa­kistan (ECP) that the PTI chief had concealed gifts from Toshakhana, PTI lawyer Ali Bukhari inf­ormed the judge that Bar­rister Gohar Ali Khan would arrive shortly and submit Imran’s power of attorney.

The counsel for the ECP reminded the judge that lawyers could not submit the power of attorney papers until their client appeared in person before court. He then requested the court to issue arrest warrant for Mr Khan.

According to the ECP’s reference, Mr Khan “has deliberately concealed the material facts by not disclosing the details of gifts…has also made evasive and ambiguous statement in his written reply that the gifts purchased by him during the financial year 2019-20 were further gifted by him or on his behalf to others.”

It requested that the “complaint may be accepted and a sentence of conviction be passed against the Respondent in respect of offences committed under Sections 167 & 173 of the Elections Act, 2017 in the interest of justice. The respondent upon conviction be imprisoned for the maximum term of three years and be fined in accordance with Section 174 of the Election Act, 2017 in the interest of justice.”

However, while extending his interim bail till Feb 10, the court exempted Mr Khan from personal appearance on Tuesday with the direction that he submit Rs20,000 surety bonds to ensure his presence on the date of indictment.

Prohibited funding

On the other hand, the special court on offence in banks rejected Mr Khan’s application seeking permission to join the proceeding in prohibited funding case through a video link.

Judge Rakhshanda Shaheen also warned of recalling the interim bail order if Mr Khan would not appear in person on Feb 15.

The counsel for the PTI chairman informed the court that Mr Khan had asked the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to record his statement at his Lahore residence as he was unable to visit the investigation agency’s office due to his injury. While citing a Supreme Court judgement regarding recording of statement, the counsel said the FIA could send a questionnaire if it did not want to visit his client at his residence.

Special prosecutor of the FIA Raja Rizwan Abbasi, however, insisted that Mr Khan was not an exception when law was equal for every citizen. He argued that the law demanded court to withdraw the relief of bail if a suspect fails to appear in person.

In his arguments, the defence counsel told the court that his client had to obtain records from various banks.

The court warned Mr Khan’s lawyer that his interim bail could be cancelled if he did not appear on Feb 15, the next date of hearing in prohibited funding case.

Published in Dawn, February 1st, 2023

Opinion

Editorial

Impending slaughter
Updated 07 May, 2024

Impending slaughter

Seven months into the slaughter, there are no signs of hope.
Wheat investigation
07 May, 2024

Wheat investigation

THE Shehbaz Sharif government is in a sort of Catch-22 situation regarding the alleged wheat import scandal. It is...
Naila’s feat
07 May, 2024

Naila’s feat

IN an inspirational message from the base camp of Nepal’s Mount Makalu, Pakistani mountaineer Naila Kiani stressed...
Plugging the gap
06 May, 2024

Plugging the gap

IN Pakistan, bias begins at birth for the girl child as discriminatory norms, orthodox attitudes and poverty impede...
Terrains of dread
Updated 06 May, 2024

Terrains of dread

Restored faith in the police is unachievable without political commitment and interprovincial support.
Appointment rules
Updated 06 May, 2024

Appointment rules

If the judiciary had the power to self-regulate, it ought to have exercised it instead of involving the legislature.