Cipher case: IHC to hear Imran’s bail plea on Monday

  • IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq will preside over the proceedings
Updated 23 Sep, 2023

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) will hear on Monday the post-arrest bail plea filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan in the cipher case, Aaj News reported.

IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq will preside over the proceedings on September 25.

The case in question is related to the “misuse” of alleged contents of a diplomatic cipher, cited by ex-premier Imran as proof of the attempt to remove his government.

Imran is currently incarcerated at the Attock Jail.

On September 16, a bail plea was filed through the former PM’s counsel Salman Safdar. The petition named State and Interior Ministry Secretary Yousuf Naseem Khokar as respondent in the case.

Imran filed the plea after a special court — established under the Official Secrets Act and hearing the case registered against the PTI chief and his party’s vice chairman Shah Mahmood Qureshi — had rejected the post-arrest bail applications of Imran and the senior politician.

Earlier this week, the special court judge, Abual Hasnat Muhammad Zulqarnain, while hearing the case, approved the PTI chairman’s petition seeking to allow him to meet with his legal team and his doctor in Attock Jail.

Cipher case background

A case was registered against Imran and Qureshi under Sections 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.

According to the copy of the FIR registered on August 15, consequent upon the conclusion of inquiry No 111/2023 upon the complaint registered in the Counter Terrorism Wing (CTW), FIA, it transpired that former prime minister namely, Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi, former foreign minister namely, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, and their other associates are involved in the communication of information contained in the secret classified document (cipher telegram received from Parep Washington dated March 7, 2022, to secretary Ministry of Foreign Affairs) to the unauthorised persons (i.e., public at large) by twisting the facts to achieve their “ulterior motives” and personal gains in a manner prejudicial to the interests of state security.

Read Comments