Former Prime Minister Imran Khan has approached the Supreme Court to contest a Lahore High Court (LHC) decision that denied him bail in cases linked to the May 9, 2023, riots. Khan’s legal team, led by Salman Safdar, argues that the prosecution has presented three contradictory narratives to link him to the alleged conspiracy behind the unrest, all of which have been dismissed by various courts.
The petition states that a division bench of the LHC, headed by Justice Shahbaz Ali Rizvi, relied on the statements of two police officials in its June 24 ruling. These officials alleged Khan’s involvement in the conspiracy. However, Khan’s counsel argues that these testimonies have already been rejected in earlier proceedings, where both pre-arrest and post-arrest bail had been granted.
Khan’s legal challenge outlines how the prosecution initially claimed that a police officer, Hassam Afzal, overheard a conspiracy at Zaman Park on May 7. Later, they introduced another officer, Asmat Kamal, who allegedly heard similar statements at Chakri Rest Area on May 4. These claims were dismissed due to delayed reporting and lack of credibility. On March 1, 2024, the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in Lahore granted Khan pre-arrest bail in these cases.
After the collapse of this first narrative, the prosecution shifted to a second version, asserting that Khan had incited violence through media statements. This too was rejected by the LHC for lack of evidence. A third version, involving fresh testimonies from party leaders Sadaqat Abbasi and Wasiq Qayyum, was also rejected by the ATC in Rawalpindi, which discharged co-accused Bushra Bibi on August 20, 2024.
Khan’s petition argues that the repeated failure to present consistent and credible evidence qualifies the case for further inquiry, thereby justifying post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It also contends that the LHC erred by relying on testimonies already dismissed in previous judicial proceedings.
The petition criticizes the LHC for accepting a new explanation by the prosecution, claiming that witness statements were recorded promptly on May 4, 2023. It says this assertion had never been made in any prior court hearings and was introduced for the first time in the impugned order, without any supporting evidence.
It further alleges that the LHC overstepped its jurisdiction by attempting to compensate for the prosecution’s gaps, which undermines judicial impartiality. Khan maintains that his implication in the May 9 cases is politically motivated, aimed at extending his incarceration and damaging his reputation.
The document highlights that the police made no effort to arrest Khan for over fourteen months, despite knowing his location in Adiala Jail. This delay, the petition argues, reveals that the arrest was driven by ulterior motives rather than legal necessity.
Khan’s team also refers to a Supreme Court ruling on May 2, 2025, in which post-arrest bail was granted to co-accused Ejaz Chaudhary under similar charges. That decision, rendered by a three-member bench, noted prosecutorial delays and concluded the case merited further inquiry.
The petition emphasizes that Khan has already secured bail in 21 other cases arising from the same May 9 events, all based on similar allegations and evidence. It argues that this consistent pattern of judicial relief further strengthens his claim for parity and bail.
Multiple courts, including the LHC and ATCs in Lahore and Rawalpindi, have raised doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative. Based on these findings, Khan seeks post-arrest bail from the Supreme Court, asserting that the case against him lacks legal merit and stems from political motives.
