The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday accepted post-arrest bail petition of founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan in eight cases related to May 9 riots.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and comprising Justice Syed Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shafi Siddiqui conducted hearing of Imran Khan's appeal against the Lahore High Court order in cases linked to May 9 mayhem.
The apex court said in its written order that the main thrust of the prosecution revolves around the allegation that the petitioner hatched a conspiracy for the commission of the offences mentioned in the FIRs. To this end, 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 implicate the petitioner and connect him with the commission of the alleged offences.
It added, 'When confronted with the grant of bail rendered by this Court to Mr Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhary, Mr Imtiaz Mehmood, and Mr Hafiz Farhat Abbas, who were linked to the same occurrence and charged similarly to the present petitioner, the learned Special Prosecutor responded that the case of the present petitioner was clearly distinguishable and, therefore, the principle of consistency would not apply in the instant bail matters.'
Further, the court order said that when the learned Special Prosecutor was confronted with the definite findings regarding the merits of the case recorded in the impugned order refusing bail to the present petitioner, he explained that it is by now settled that the findings so recorded in a bail granting order are tentative in nature, to be restricted only to the proceedings of bail and are not considered during the trial of an accused.
The counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the Special Prosecutor. In particular, he 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 this 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 is comparatively stronger.
The apex court wrote, 'This Court has noted that the definite findings recorded by the learned High Court in the impugned order, which go to the very root of the contested claims of the parties. However, without passing any findings on the legality and veracity of the said findings, our concern at this stage is confined only to the fact that such findings have been recorded at the stage of bail.'
It further said that 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.
In addition thereto, the case of the petitioner has to be positively considered in view of the principle of consistency, as others similarly placed have been granted bail by this Court.
The court concluded, 'In view of the above, these petitions are converted into appeals and allowed. The petitioner is granted post-arrest bail in the above mentioned cases, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court in each case.'
At the onset of the proceeding, Special Prosecutor General, Punjab, Zulfiqar Naqvi told the bench that he could not appear yesterday due to food poison.
The Chief Justice asked him to make submission on legal points; whether the High Court can give findings on merit of the case in the bail petition. He also said that this Court (SC) has granted bail in a case of conspiracy allegation, adding that whether the principle of consistency would in this case as well? In all three rulings, the accused were granted bail despite conspiracy allegations.
Zulfiqar Naqvi submitted that in bail cases, the court's observations are always of an interim nature, and the Court observation has no effect on the trial. He said from 1996 to 2024, the SC had repeatedly held that observations in bail matters were temporary.
Naqvi told the court that in the conspiracy case, the court had granted bail to three accused, adding that in one such case, the accused were not named in the FIR. He said the apex court had laid down this criterion in 2014, earlier reaffirmed in 1996, 1998, and in the 2022 Muhammad Rafiq vs State case. 'The High Court's judgment also states that the observations are of an interim nature,' he added.
Acknowledging that the SC granted bail to Ejaz Chaudhry, Prosecutor Naqvi argued it differed from the PTI founder's case as 'no evidence existed and the accused had not been named in the FIR,' but CJP Afridi said the prosecution must show it was 'different from earlier ones.'
Naqvi said that three witness statements were presented, arguing the PTI founder 'played a central role in all cases.' The CJP remarked, 'If the SC makes observations on merits, the trial will be affected. My role was to warn you; the rest is for you to consider.'
Naqvi insisted the law barred bail and claimed there was 'solid evidence' against Khan, but the CJP said, 'the evidence will have to be proven before the trial court.'
He said that the SC allowed the trial court to approach the court to conduct three tests of the founder, adding that the police approached the magistrate for voice matching, photogrammetric and polygrammatic tests. 'Despite the court's permission, the suspect could not conduct the tests,' he added.
'If that is the case, there will be legal consequences,' CJP Afridi remarked. 'Are such tests normally conducted in other cases as well?' Justice Hassan Rizvi asked. According to Naqvi, the law prohibited bail for the suspect. 'There is solid evidence against the suspect,' he said.
'The evidence will be proven in the trial court,' CJP Afridi said. 'After the incident, the suspect was on bail for two months until his arrest,' Justice Rizvi said. He asked whether the two-month period was not enough for the police investigation.
When the hearing resumed after a brief break, the prosecutor requested that the court allow him to assist on the merits of the case. However, CJP Afridi observed, 'We will not allow anyone to argue on the merits of the case. You may only answer the legal questions pertaining to the conspiracy.'
Bail granted to PTI founder does not equate to acquittal: Tarar
Minister for Information and Broadcasting Attaullah Tarar has said that bail granted to the PTI founder chairman does not equate to acquittal.
In a video statement, he emphasised that the trial against the PTI founder chairman is still ongoing. He said the entire nation witnessed his involvement in orchestrating the events of May 9, which aimed to destabilise the system, damage the economy, and harm the country.
The Minister further asserted that the PTI founder is convicted in the 190 million pounds mega corruption case, one of the most significant scandals in the country's history. He highlighted that the PTI founder was sentenced to 14 years in prison following a transparent trial based on substantial evidence. He added that the accused failed to justify in court why billions of rupees were transferred to Malik Riaz or under what legal grounds.
Attaullah Tarar said PTI resorted to invoking the narrative of the 'State of Medina' instead of presenting credible evidence. He criticised the party for using religious symbolism and the 'Islamic touch' as a diversion from accountability.
He underscored that billions of rupees, which should have been received by the Government of Pakistan, were instead paid as fines. He questioned why the PTI founder and his spouse established the controversial Al-Qadir University Trust if their conduct was above board.
The minister pointed out that the PTI-led former government secured cabinet approval through a sealed envelope. He noted that ministers who raised concerns about the envelope at the time were deliberately ignored. This sealed approval facilitated the misappropriation of 190 million pounds.
Attaullah Tarar expressed hope that other pending cases, particularly those related to the May 9 riots, during which military installations were attacked and martyrs' memorials desecrated, as well as the Toshakhana II case will be decided at the earliest.
Supreme Court grants bail to Imran in 8 May 9 riots cases
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).