LHC Reserves Verdict On imran Riaz Khan’s Travel Plea

The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) informed the Lahore High Court that anchorperson Imran Riaz Khan’s name had been placed in the Passport Control List (PCL) by the Directorate of Immigration and Passports, Islamabad. The FIA’s director legal filed a report stating that the inclusion of the anchorperson’s name in the PCL was recommended by the agency’s cybercrime wing following the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). The report highlighted concerns that the petitioner might attempt to flee the country to evade prosecution in the ongoing case against him.

According to the FIA report, the petitioner had filed the current petition without utilizing the primary legal remedy available, which involves filing an appeal before a review committee. The agency emphasized that the petitioner had not exhausted this option before seeking relief from the court.

Read more: Imran Riaz Khan Nominated For Human Rights Award

The FIA clarified that the petitioner’s name was initially placed on the Provisional National Identification List (PNIL), but it was subsequently removed. After presenting the FIA’s report, Justice Shujaat Ali Khan reserved his verdict on the anchorperson’s petition challenging the travel ban imposed on him.

In response to the FIA’s actions, Imran Riaz Khan’s counsel, Azhar Siddique, argued that there was no registered case against his client, and the government had unlawfully included his name in the stop list. Siddique contended that such government action violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner, asserting that restricting citizens’ free movement required legal justification.

The lawyer urged the court to instruct the removal of the petitioner’s name from the stop list and grant permission for him to travel to Saudi Arabia to perform Umrah.

In essence, the legal proceedings revolve around the FIA’s placement of Imran Riaz Khan’s name in the Passport Control List, citing concerns that he may attempt to leave the country to avoid prosecution in a case against him. The petitioner’s counsel argues that there is no registered case, and the government’s actions infringe upon the petitioner’s fundamental rights. The court is now tasked with evaluating the merits of the case and deciding whether the travel restrictions imposed on the anchorperson are legally justified or should be lifted.