PTI founder Imran Khan on Tuesday sought post-arrest bail from an anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Lahore over a dozen cases related to the May 9 riots, for which the high court had set aside his physical remand.

The already incarcerated former prime minister was “arrested” in these cases on July 15 — just a day after he and his wife, Bushra Bibi, had been apprehended in a new Toshakhana case, following their acquittal in the Iddat case.

The new arrest, however, had left his chances of being free from jail hanging in the balance.

Given his repeated apprehensions, Tuesday’s petition — filed through Barrister Salman Safdar and a copy of which is available with Dawn.com — moved the court to grant a post-arrest bail to the former premier.

“[…] The petitioner being aggrieved from a malicious and politically motivated attempt of the complainant to frame him in this frivolous FIR, craves for the kind indulgence of this honourable court for the grant of ‘post arrest’ bail”, it read.

The petition was made based on ten points arguing why Imran must be granted bail. It said that the sole allegation against him was related to “abetment” for allegedly inciting his supporters to violence. It argued that the allegation was levelled against him when he was in custody and was not allowed to communicate with the outside world.

It added that since his arrest was not sought for five-and-a-half months after his bail was dismissed on non-prosecution on August 11, his arrest was not required in the case.

The petition noted that bail petitions for similar cases had been granted to Imran by the ATCs in Lahore and Rawalpindi as well as additional sessions judges in Islamabad, while “witnesses of abetment introduced at belated stage have already been disbelieved by an ATC in Lahore.

“The petitioner’s arrest, based on vague and belated allegations, highlights the police’s malafide intent and ulterior motives, as further evidenced by directives from senior officials to implicate him in all related cases,” the petition argued.

It said that the material collected by police from social media was the result of an afterthought and, therefore, does not constitute any penal offence, adding that the majority of those co-accused have already been granted bail.

“There is a need for ‘further Inquiry’ into the petitioner’s guilt, making his continued incarceration illegal and unjustified given the lack of credible evidence,” the petition stated, adding that Imran “had been roped in this case at behest of his political opponents.”

The petition argued that since the “sole allegation” against Imran was related to abetment, therefore, a case of an abettor not present at the spot “always stands at a lower footing”.

Cases’ history

On July 15, a Lahore ATC granted police Imran’s 10-day physical remand against a request for a 30-day remand.

Subsequently, on July 18, Imran approached the LHC challenging his physical remand in 12 criminal cases of last year’s violent attacks on military facilities and other properties, including the Lahore corps commander’s residence. He had argued that the ATC order be declared illegal and set aside and that his custody be transferred from the police to judicial custody.

After issuing notices on July 23, an LHC division bench had the next day asked the prosecution to justify the need for Imran’s physical remand.

The bench had observed that the prosecution needed to justify what evidence necessitated the remand of the petitioner.

On July 25, Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh and Justice Anwarul Haq Pannun resumed the hearing, accepting Imran’s petition to set aside his 10-day physical remand.

“The remand is not to be granted in a mechanical manner on the police request,” said a detailed verdict issued by the bench.

The verdict authored by Justice Pannun said a judge, who grants remand, is under legal duty to satisfy himself if under the circumstances the remand is to be granted or not. It said the liberty of a person cannot be curtailed and he has a legal right to explain his point of view before the judge when remand is to be granted.

Hearing a separate petition, the bench also set aside a notification permitting Imran’s appearance in court cases via video link due to security reasons.