Toshakhana-II case: IK, Bushra move IHC for suspension of sentences

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi filed an appeal before the Islamabad High Court (IHC) seeking suspension of sentence in Toshakhana-II case, and release on medical grounds till the final adjudication.

Salman Akram Raja, Barrister Salman Safdar and Barrister Gohar Ali Khan on Saturday filed a petition under Section 426 read with Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. A miscellaneous application has also been filed seeking an early hearing of the case related to the suspension of sentence in the £190 million case.

The Special Court Central-I judge on December 20, 2025, awarded 10 years sentence to the couple under Section 409 Pakistan Penal Court (PPC). Imran and Bushra were sentenced to seven years’ simple imprisonment under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

According to the petition the trial court erred in holding Imran to be a “public servant” within the meaning of Section 21 PPC, relying upon PLD 2024 SC 102 and Indian Supreme Court precedent. It was contended that elected holders of public office do not qualify as public servants for the purpose of Section 409 PPC.

It maintained that gifts received from the Toshakhana were duly deposited and retained after payment of 50 per cent of the value exceeding the basic exemption of Rs30,000, strictly in accordance with the Toshakhana Policy, 2018.

The petition contended that the conviction under two separate enactments for the same alleged act violated the principle of double jeopardy enshrined in Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

“Such dual conviction for the same alleged act is wholly beyond the mandate of law, as the petitioner could, at best, have been convicted under either of the two provisions, but not under both,” the petition argued.

The petition stated that a medical report submitted by Dr Muhammad Arif of the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) revealed severe damage to the Imran’s right eye. Therefore, requested the IHC to release the petitioner on medical grounds.

Barrister Salman Safdar, who was appointed amicus curiae, in his report, submitted before the Supreme Court, stated that Imran was diagnosed with a blood clot that caused severe damage, and despite the treatment administered (including an injection), he has been left with only 15 percent vision in his right eye.”

The petition also raised objections to the treatment of prosecution witness Sohaib Abbasi as an approver, contending that the mandatory procedure under Section 337 CrPC was not followed.

It was argued that witness Syed Inamullah Shah, being a material participant in the alleged transaction, ought to have been arrayed as an accused rather than examined as a routine prosecution witness, reflecting a “selective approach manifestly demonstrative of malafide intent”.

The petitioners highlighted that they remained on bail throughout the trial and faithfully complied with all terms and conditions imposed by the trial court.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026