Imran must surrender before trial court: verdict

Islamabad court maintains PTI chairman’s arrest warrants in Toshakhana case n Lahore High Court prohibits PTI from holding rally; orders police to stop operation at Zaman Park for another day n Judge says resistance by Imran Khan is so strange n Law is equal for powerful and weak segments of society.

ISLAMABAD/LAHORE    -    A court in Islamabad on Thurs­day dismissed the petition of Pa­kistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan seeking cancella­tion of non-bailable arrest war­rants in the Toshakhana case and maintained its earlier or­ders to the police to produce the accused after arresting him.

Additional District and Ses­sions Judge Zafar Iqbal said that the application had been viewed from every legal aspect before issuing this order. He announced the verdict which was earlier re­served after hearing arguments from the lawyers.

Earlier during the course of the proceedings, Islamabad In­spector General of Police Akbar Nasir appeared before the court and adopted the stance that how he would answer to the families of the police personnel who suf­fered cruelty in Lahore. 

The IG further apprised the court that unarmed police per­sonnel were sent there for the execution of the court orders. The IGP said that no representa­tive of Islamabad police was al­lowed to meet Imran Khan, add­ing that an assurance was also given last day regarding his ap­pearance. No one had talked to Islamabad Police in Zaman Park instead the police was “attacked with petrol bombs”, he confided to the court. 

The IG Islamabad contended that everyone was equal before the law. “If one person is given the relief then other people have the same rights,” he said, add­ing that the police water can­non was burnt and 65 person­nel were injured in the clashes with the PTI supporters who re­sisted the arrest of Imran. 

Earlier, the judge remarked that the Islamabad High Court (IHC) had endorsed the orders of this court. He said the court viewed the matter if Imran Khan appeared before it. The court wanted to completely co­operate with the accused but he had made the attendance mat­ter as very complex. 

The judge said that the court didn’t want to put Imran Khan’s life on risk but there were some legal requirements as the court also had to follow the directives of IHC. He said the resistance by Imran Khan was so strange, adding the legal team should have suggested the PTI chief to extend cooperation with the course of law.

Meanwhile, Imran’s lawyer Khawaja Haris prayed to the court to review the plea against arrest warrants and the fur­nished undertaking of Imran Khan assuring the court that he would be appear on March 18. He argued that the said date was very close and the court had the powers to cancel the warrants. 

Haris prayed the court to view all aspects to ensure the atten­dance of his client. He asked the court to view that whether it was appropriate to restore ar­rest warrants or not in current situation. He claimed the Islam­abad High Court in its order had also written to view the under­taking before deciding the mat­ter. He said that Imran Khan had never stated that he wouldn’t appear before the court instead he had assured his appearance on March 18. It is pertinent to mention that the IHC, the other day, had also up held the deci­sion of trial court regarding the arrest warrants of Imran Khan in Toshakhana case.

‘DIGNITY AND WRIT OF STATE’

According to written court orders (a copy of which is also available with The Nation), it was quite obvious from the re­cord that the applicant has nev­er faced the court on any date of hearing and his personal ap­pearance has been exempted on four occasions by the judge on request of his lawyers.

The court order further said that many civilians and police­men had been injured and of­ficial and private vehicles had been damaged in executing the arrest warrant and the PTI Chief Imran Khan had challenged the dignity and writ of the state in Zaman Park Lahore.

The judge observed that mas­sive force has been used in ob­struction of police officers and officials for imparting their duty and after creating such a sorry state of affairs, the applicant may not claim suspension of the warrant issued by the court.

It further said: “Keeping in view the law and order situa­tion created by the applicant, he has lost some of the normal rights granted by procedural as well as substantive laws and he has to actually surrender before the court due to his defiance of the court process. Such eventu­ality is never appreciated by the court and it is regarded as will­ful default.”

The order said that law was equal for the powerful and weak segments of society and “it is not a fun to tender such an undertaking after causing such a great loss to the public exche­quer as well as damage to per­sons and property”. The order said a “poor nation” had spent millions of rupees for executing the warrant due to Imran’s con­duct. It ended by saying that the application was “not justified by law as well as fact.” “Therefore, the application of Imran Khan was rejected,” the order said.

Earlier, when the court taken up the plea of Imran Khan, Kha­waja Haris and Faisal Chaudhry Advocates were present in the courtroom on his behalf. The judge asked the lawyers of Im­ran Khan as to why they were resisting to which Khawaja Haris argued is it necessary to produce his client Imran Khan with handcuffs in his hands be­fore the court by the police? The judge observed, “We want Im­ran Khan appear before court.” 

“Why the law and order situ­ation is being created in Lahore and why you are not making Imran Khan to appear before court,” the judge Zafar Iqbal said. Khawaja Haris said that the government is responsible for all the mess in Zaman Park Lahore. Judge asked where is the undertaking? Khawaja Haris said they would bring the un­dertaking shortly. 

“Leave it and there is no need to bring the piece of paper,” ob­served the judge.

‘IF IMRAN KHAN IS READY TO SURRENDER’

“Will the court keep the arrest warrant of Imran Khan alive with all the hardness,” said the lawyer of Khan.

The judge observed that court issued arrest warrant so that Imran Khan appeared before court in person on which the lawyer added that he wanted to face the court. “There is no issue if the arrest warrants are bail­able,” said judge adding that the arguments being made by the defense lawyers are supporting bailable warrants.

ASJ Islamabad West Zaf­ar Iqbal asked the lawyer as to where Imran Khan had faced the court in person and is there any concept of undertaking ex­isting in the law? “What is the reason? Imran Khan should co­operate with the police as per law instead of showing resis­tance and he should not create a scene by displaying defiance,” 

The judge remarked that there is no concern of undertak­ing as per verdict of high court on which Khawaja Haris replied that Section 76 have concept of undertaking. “Section 76 sup­ports bailable warrants only,” the court said. The judge added that the order of IHC should not affect the order of lower court unlawfully.

Khawaja Haris said that if ar­rest of Khan was mandatory, why they had to knock the door of IHC. “IHC upheld my orders,” the judge remarked. Khawaja Haris argued that IHC directed the lower court to issue verdict after examining the undertak­ing and surety.

Judge said that if your cli­ent is willing to appear before court than we can wind up the matter. “If Imran Khan is ready to surrender, I right now order IG Punjab not to arrest him,” ASJ said.

The lawyer of Khan added that this was the basic issue as government called police from whole Punjab to launch attack on residence of Imran Khan.

“The warrants can be sus­pended but only on grounds of any solid reason,” the judge said adding that a peaceful protest can be staged by PTI by holding banners and placards.

“We are here before you for the purpose,” said Khawaja Haris. “The accused appear be­fore us and request for suspen­sion of arrest warrants,” said judge. “Imran Khan himself will­ing to face to court and there­fore no need of arrest,” said Khawaja Haris adding that gov­ernment spent millions of ru­pees on the efforts to handcuff his client.

‘POLICE OPERATION FOR ARREST OF IMRAN’

The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Thursday extended stay against the police operation for the arrest of Pakistan Teh­reek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Im­ran Khan till Friday, March 17. 

Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh heard the petition, filed by PTI leader Fawad Chaudhry seek­ing directions to stop the po­lice operation in Zaman Park for the arrest of the PTI chair­man in Toshakhana case. In­spector General of Police (IGP) Punjab Dr Usman Anwar and Advocate General Punjab Shan Gul appeared before the court during the case proceedings. As the proceedings started on Thursday, the court questioned where the petitioner (Fawad Chaudhry) was. Fawad’s coun­sel submitted that his client was on the way and would reach the court in a few moments.

However, the court observed that it was the level of serious­ness of the applicant, adding that the court had fixed the mat­ter for hearing at 10am and the petitioner should have reached the court at the given time. 

The court further observed that nobody read law and it was the reason for eruption of all is­sues, adding that the solution to everything was available in the law and the Constitution.

The court addressed Fawad’s counsel and observed that “sometime you approach the Lahore High Court and some­time Islamabad High Court”, adding that you did not know the direction to move.

To which, Fawad’s counsel re­sponded that it had become a political issue now.

At this, the court observed that both the parties had made it an issue, adding that there was a great need to follow the law in the matter.

At this stage, PTI lead­er Fawad Chaudhry entered the courtroom. The court ad­dressed Fawad Chaudhry and questioned what was the mat­ter of security. Fawad Chaudhry submitted that it was a serious matter, adding that Imran Khan appeared before four courts of Islamabad, but avoided the fifth court in view of confirmed re­ports of an attack. However, the court observed that there was a provision in the law for obtain­ing security. The court further observed that there was a pol­icy available for the purpose, and an application should be filed with the forum concerned under it. The court further ob­served that if the party want­ed to hold a public meeting, then it should plan the same 15 days prior to the date. The court asked parties to sit down and sort out the issues, including the rescheduling of the PTI rally to be held on March 19.