ISLAMABAD: Senior PTI leader and former Punjab minister Mian Mehmoodur Rasheed on Wednesday approached the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) to challenge his 10-year sentence for his involvement in the May 9, 2023, violence.

Filed through Advocate Sikandar Zulqarnain Saleem, the petition sought leave to appeal against the April 28, 2026, Lahore High Court order dismissing his plea for suspension of the sentence.

The petition also sought suspension of the sentence and his release on bail until the final decision on his pending appeal before the LHC.

Mr Rasheed was convicted by an anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Lahore on Aug 11, 2025, for his involvement in an attack on Shadman Police Station. He was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 7(1)(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), another 10 years under Section 21-I of the ATA, and 10 years under Section 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for criminal conspiracy.

Mehmoodur Rasheed seeks suspension of sentence, release on bail pending LHC appeal

The petition argued that the LHC division bench overlooked significant contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence, noting that no witness testified that the petitioner had instigated the violence. It contended that the trial court itself had disbelieved the alleged recovery of a weapon from him and acquitted him of charges under Sections 324 and 353 of the PPC, among others.

The petition highlighted that 13 co-accused were acq­uitted on the same set of evidence. It also argued that the trial court relied on social media clips and press clippings that were never formally produced as evide­nce, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

The petition further contended that, while dismissing his plea, the LHC division bench ignored the fact that prosecution witnesses claiming knowledge of the alleged conspiracy admitted during cross-examination that they did not know the address of Imran Khan’s residence. In such circumstances, it argued, their presence at the alleged conspiracy meeting was highly doubtful, making the sentence liable to be suspended.

Moreover, the petition maintained, the LHC order was contrary to the settled principles of criminal law.

It further argued that the high court ignored the principles laid down by the superior courts that an accused cannot be convicted on the basis of material that was never produced as evidence before the trial court or subjected to cross-examination.

The petition also contended that the high court overlooked the absence of any evidence showing that the petitioner instigated anyone or acted pursuant to the alleged conspiracy. Therefore, it argued, the sentence was liable to be set aside or suspended as it violated the principles of natural justice.

It further stated that the high court ignored the fact that the trial court had disbelieved the alleged recovery of a 30-bore pistol from the petitioner and had also rejected the prosecution’s claim regarding his presence at the scene of the incident. Consequently, he had been acquitted of charges under Sections 114, 121, 188, 149, 337-F(i), 353 and 324 of the PPC.

Therefore, the petition argued, the conviction and sentence based solely on what it described as unreliable conspiracy witnesses are not sustainable in the eye of the law.

Published in Dawn, July 23rd, 2026