ISLAMABAD: A district and sessions court ruled that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman and former prime minister Imran Khan was behind bars at the time of the occurrence of the May 9 protest demonstration and it is also absurd to imply that the petitioner himself maneuvered his unlawful arrest from the premises of Islamabad High Court (IHC), so that he could act upon his so-called “secret plan of violence”.

Additional Sessions Judge Farrukh Farid, in his four pages written judgment in which granted bail to PTI chief in two cases registered in Shehzad Town police in connection with May 9 protest demonstration, ruled that the prosecution must prove that the accused, Imran Khan, instigated the violence.

The order says that no provision of penal code has so widely been misinterpreted and misused as the abetment/ conspiracy has been. In order to establish the abetment, the prosecution has to establish that there was a causal connection between the abettor’s actions and the actual commission of offence, it says, adding that it must be shown that the abettor’s instigation and assistance substantially contributed to the commission of crime.

The court’s order says that in the instant case the evidence collected by the prosecution with respect to the so-called abetment is a video statement, the transcript of which is available on file. First, it does not relate to the particular occurrence and second, it does not carry even a single word which can be taken as the “instigation” as referred in section 107 Pakistan Penal Code (PPC.

The court’s order says similar is the position of a dozen of tweets collected by the prosecution. “Admittedly the petitioner was behind bars at the time of occurrence and it is also absurd to imply that the petitioner himself manoeuvred his unlawful arrest from the premises of IHC, so that he could act upon his so called “secret plan of violence,” the order says.

The order further says that it is a ridiculous way to implicate a person in a criminal case which clearly reflects malafide and ulterior motive on the part of police/ prosecution. No purpose shall be achieved by handing over the person of accused/ petitioner to the police except to let him face undue humiliation, it says adding that hence, the pre-arrest bail petition of the accused/ petitioner is accepted and ad-interim bail already granted to the accused/ petitioner is confirmed, subject to furnishing of surety bond Rs.5,000.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023