Imran Khan’s arrest warrant challenged in IHC in Toshakhana case

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) appealed to the Islamabad High Court on Tuesday the decision of a district and sessions court upholding the non-bailable arrest warrant for former prime minister Imran Khan (IHC).

A day earlier, Additional Sessions Judge Zafar Iqbal denied a request to suspend the warrants issued in the Toshakhana case last month due to the defendant’s repeated absences from court sessions.

Lawyer Ali Bokhari, who represents PTI Chairman, also asked the court to schedule this case’s hearing for today.

The PTI lawyers claim in the appeal that the contested rulings violate the law and the facts and were made without taking into account the widely accepted principle that each case must be evaluated in light of its unique circumstances.

The petition stated that “the impugned decisions are passed ignoring the alteration in law” since “the Honourable Apex Court has interpreted the law in favour of the accused person and utilised modern procedures as per the facts of the case” in a number of recent judgements.

It also said “It is also established law that the superior courts, which are higher on the hierarchy of adjudication, should be visited first, and the petitioner abides by this rule both legally and morally.

Read More: Imran khan & exemption request accepted in Toshakhana case.

“The precedent that the petitioner established by showing up in all the courts allows one to infer his intentions. But owing to unavoidable circumstances in Islamabad. The PTI leader is dealing with major health concerns as a result of the attack in Wazirabad, according to Imran Khan’s attorneys, who also claimed that his medical advisors have consistently advised against him taking any kind of trip.

“At the same time, the present circumstances and scenario expressly speak volumes of a life danger to Khan among other serious conditions cumulatively are obstacles before his appearance before the court asks indulgence of this honourable court to set aside the assailed orders.”

It also made clear that the absence was unintentional.

To provide the petitioner a fair chance to present and defend himself before the learned judge, it is humbly urged that the impugned orders from February 28 and March 6 may kindly be set aside.