Imran secures post-arrest bail in May 9 cases
• CJP meets govt, ex-PM’s lawyers in chambers for ‘consensus-oriented order’; cases positively considered ‘in view of the principle of consistency’
• Order says allegations of criminal conspiracy require scrutiny
• PTI lawyer says concerns about founder’s alleged mistreatment in jail relayed
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday accepted the post-arrest bail plea of former prime minister and PTI founder Imran Khan in cases concerning May 9 violence, as a three-member bench led by Chief Justice Yayha Afridi considered the case in view of “the principle of consistency”.
“We are allowing these petitions,” announced CJP Yahya Afridi after hearing the appeals in the packed-to-capacity Courtroom No.1 against the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) denial of bail to Mr Khan in eight May 9 cases.
The bench, also comprising Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, closed the hearing the moment Imran Khan’s counsel Salman Safdar highlighted that no formal challans had been presented before the anti-terrorism court (ATC) where the trials were pending.
The decision comes as relief for the embattled PTI leader, with his supporters jubilant, but Mr Khan is not likely to come out of jail because of multiple cases against him.
After closing the proceedings, the CJP asked both the prosecution and the petitioner’s lawyer to join him in his chambers for assistance, during which Additional Prosecutor Punjab Ahmad Raza Gillani and Special Prosecutor Zulfikar Naqvi were also present.
“The petitioner is granted post-arrest bail in these cases, subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court in each case,” said the four-page order issued soon after the hearing.
Lest this court pass any findings on the merits of the case which may prejudice either party at trial, it is sufficient to state that the material brought on record regarding the alleged criminal conspiracy attributed to the petitioner requires scrutiny and the same would be best adjudged after recording pro and contra evidence during the trial, the order emphasised. The CJP, in the order, observed that the case had to be positively considered in view of the principle of consistency, as other similarly placed matters had been granted bail by this court.
Soon after the informal chamber meeting, Imran Khan’s counsel Salman Safdar told Dawn that he also conveyed his concern regarding the alleged maltreatment meted out to his client in prison.
There are constant reports that both Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi are being mistreated in the prison, Salman Safdar informed the CJP.
In response, the counsel quoted the CJP assuring that he would soon witness improvement as the CJP’s priority was to bring reforms in the criminal justice system to address enforced disappearances and jail reforms. The National Judicial Policy Making Committee (NJPMC) will soon take this up in its upcoming meeting.
The purpose of the chamber meeting was to develop a consensus-oriented order with the assistance of the lawyers from both sides after the court hearing, the counsel said, adding that the CJP observed that a consolidated order would be issued soon after taking into consideration the “principle of consistency”.
Salman Safdar said he also requested the CJP during the meeting to consider strict enforcement of Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code so that no individual should be arrested in a premature manner without first completing investigation and presenting challans before the magistrates concerned, instead of just arresting individuals for nefarious designs.
The counsel also asked the CJP to take note of the fact that cases instituted by PTI leaders were not being taken up by the Islamabad High Court (IHC). The CJP ignored the request, stating the top court would not interfere in the affairs of a superior judiciary.
In its order, the Supreme Court stated it had noted that definite findings recorded by the high court in the impugned order, which went to the very root of the contested claims of the parties. However, without passing any findings on the legality and veracity of the findings, the concern at this stage was confined to the fact that such findings had been recorded at the stage of bail, the order explained.
Imran Khan had sought leave to appeal against the June 24, 2025, LHC orders in which post-arrest bail was refused to him in eight cases registered at Race Course, Shadman, Mughalpura, Sarwar Road and Gulberg police stations in Lahore.
Gist of proceedings
The thrust of the prosecution revolved around the allegation that the petitioner hatched a conspiracy for the commission of offences. The special prosecutor drew the attention of the court to the ocular statements of three witnesses as well as electronic media and argued that these clearly implicated the petitioner and connected him with the commission of the alleged offences.
When confronted with the grant of bail rendered by the Supreme Court to Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhary, Imtiaz Mehmood and Hafiz Farhat Abbas, who were linked to the same occurrence and charged similarly to the present petitioner, the special prosecutor responded that the case of Imran Khan was clearly distinguishable and therefore, the principle of consistency would not apply in the instant bail matters.
About the LHC bench’s observations, he explained that it was by now settled that the findings recorded in a bail granting order were tentative in nature, to be restricted to the proceedings of bail and not considered during the trial of an accused.
Meanwhile, Salman Safdar vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the special prosecutor and emphasised that the principle of consistency had to be applied in favour of the petitioner, as all three accused, namely, Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhary, Imtiaz Mahmood, and Hafiz Farhat Abbas, were charged with alleged criminal conspiracy, and thus the case of the petitioner would surely fall within the domain of parity, which had to be positively considered in favour of the present petitioner.
He further explained that the cases of the present petitioner were on a better footing, in particular, than that of Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhary, who had been granted bail by the apex court. He pointed out that in the case of Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhry, the investigation had been completed and the trial had commenced, whereas in the case of the present petitioner, those stages had not yet been reached, and thus, his entitlement to bail was comparatively stronger.
Published in Dawn, August 22nd, 2025