ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) dismissed the Punjab government’s petition seeking the remand of PTI founder and former premier Imran Khan, ruling that the provincial government can approach the trial court if it wants.
Imran, 71, has been imprisoned at Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail upon his conviction in several cases, including two Toshakhana references, the cipher case, and the Iddat case, in which his wife, Bushra Bibi, is also jailed.
The Punjab government approached the apex court to secure the ex-premier’s remand in over a dozen cases related to the May 9 riots. These petitions were set aside by the Lahore High Court (LHC) in July 2024.
During today’s hearing, presided over by a three-member bench, Justice Hashim Kakar remarked, “One-and-a-half years have passed since Imran’s arrest, so the question of physical remand cannot arise now.”When asked by Kakar why the provincial government was seeking remand, the government’s counsel replied that they needed to conduct three tests.
“The accused has to undergo a photographic, polygraphic and voice matching test,” the lawyer responded, adding that Imran was being uncooperative in carrying out the tests.Kakar noted that the petition sought physical remand and no tests, reiterating that since a year-and-a-half had passed, physical remand could not be granted.
Replying to the lawyer’s claim that Imran was being uncooperative, Kakar asked, “He is in your custody, how can he not cooperate?“The trial court granted physical remand, but the High Court rejected the trial court’s decision with detailed reasons. Now, this petition has become ineffective and physical remand cannot be given,” he said.
Justice Salahuddin Panhor asked the government’s counsel whether they had a USB with evidence against Imran, urging them to have it forensically examined if they do.PTI lawyer Salman Safdar maintained that the prosecution had approached the trial court for 30 days of remand without Imran even being presented before the courtroom, attending the hearing by video link.
“They granted remand without Imran being present. The High Court rejected this decision,” Safdar argued. “The prosecution did not conduct any tests nor carry out any arrests for 14 months after the FIR (first information report) was filed.
“When my client was acquitted in the cipher and iddat cases, he was arrested in this case. The LHC was not satisfied by the prosecution’s request for a polygraph test,” he added.
