0
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday reserved its order on the objections raised by the registrar’s office regarding a petition seeking the release on parole of former prime minister and PTI founder Imran Khan, who is currently serving a sentence in the £190 million corruption case.
The petition was filed by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur, who personally appeared in court along with his counsel, senior advocate Sardar Latif Khosa.
Acting Chief Justice Sardar Mohammad Sarfaraz Dogar questioned the petitioner’s decision to approach the court, saying, “This is the government’s job. Why did you come here?”
In response, Mr Khosa argued that the matters of probation and parole are distinct, and since an appeal against the conviction is already pending before the IHC, the court has jurisdiction over the matter.
The government’s legal representative countered that a parole request is already pending before the provincial government and stressed that the matter does not fall under the court’s jurisdiction at this stage.
Justice Dogar stated that the court would issue a written order on the registrar’s office objections, adding, “If the government does not act, you may approach us again.”
Mr Khosa argued that despite being the elected chief executive of a province, CM Gandapur is not being allowed to meet the incarcerated founder of his party. He reminded the court that seven contempt of court petitions related to restricted meetings were already pending and urged the court to treat the parole request in the same context.
Advocate Niazullah Niazi also raised concerns over the delay in fixing the appeal for suspension of sentence in the £190 million case, asserting that the matter remained unheard despite prior assurances.
Mr Khosa emphasised the urgency of the situation, claiming that the continued detention and denial of meetings amounted to “illegal confinement”, and requested the court to address what he called a growing perception of denial of justice.
The acting chief justice acknowledged the concerns but reiterated that the parole plea and sentence suspension appeal were separate matters, and each would be reviewed independently. The court informed the counsel that a written order would be issued soon regarding the pending objections to the parole application.
Published in Dawn, May 15th, 2025
