File photo
An Anti-Terrorism Court in Islamabad on Monday granted Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan an extension to his pre-arrest bail until Sept. 20 as police maintained he was refusing to cooperate in an ongoing inquiry into alleged threats to Additional Sessions Judge Zeba Chaudhry during a public rally in Islamabad on Aug. 20.
Islamabad police have registered a case against Khan under sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act for voicing allegedly threatening remarks against the additional sessions judge and senior officials of the Islamabad Police during a speech. According to the FIR, Khan’s speech sought to “terrorize” police officials and the judiciary, with an aim to prevent them from carrying out their legal obligations.
In Monday’s hearing, Khan’s lawyer Babar Awan sought the court’s permission for his client’s vehicle to enter the Federal Judicial Complex, citing security threats. “If you had told us this earlier, we would have given permission,” the judge replied, asking if Khan had joined the investigation, as ordered by the Islamabad High Court.
Awan said Khan had joined the investigation via his lawyer. “The IHC has issued a notice on the plea seeking dismissal of the case,” he said, and accused the police of misleading the IHC by claiming that Khan was not cooperating in the investigation.
Despite being summoned thrice, the PTI chief has yet to appear before a joint investigation team formed by the Islamabad Police to probe his allegedly threatening speech.
During proceedings, the investigation officer told the court he had received Khan’s statement through a lawyer but had sought his personal appearance for further clarification. “The statement was sent to you but you didn’t make it a part of the case,” the judge replied, stressing this suggested “ill intentions” on the part of investigators. He also questioned why Khan’s personal appearance was merited when the case revolved around a publicly-available speech.
The assistant prosecutor, however, maintained the accused needed to be interrogated. “The accused must appear if he has been summoned by the IO,” he stressed, as the court adjourned till Khan could personally appear before it.
After a brief recess, the hearing resumed with Khan in attendance. To the investigation’s continued insistence on a need to interrogate Khan, Awan argued the court could issue a show-cause notice to the officer. He claimed that any ill intention could be determined through a summary proceeding that carried a penalty of two years’ imprisonment. “There is no legal value of a statement even if the accused confesses to the crime before the police,” he said. “Why are they putting the condition of in-person appearance for investigations?”
However, the special prosecutor maintained that it was the investigation officer or the JIT’s prerogative to decide the course of investigations.
The case was then adjourned till Sept. 20, with the judge ordering authorities to ensure adequate security measures for Khan and avoid inconvenience for others visiting the court.