- Justice Afridi asked two questions from PSP Naqvi:“You must have read the Lahore High Court’s verdict. Can a final observation be made in a case of bail?
- Is there any case in which there was a conspiracy and SC rejected bail? CJP he questioned prosecutor
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday accepted the bail pleas of former prime minister Imran Khan in eight cases related to the May 9, 2023 riots, with Chief Justice Yahya Afridi observing that “the evidence will be proven in the trial court.”
A three-member bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi delivered a short order on the PTI founder’s plea against rejection of his bail petition by the Lahore High Court (LHC) in eight cases related to the May 9 riots.
The bench included Justices Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi after he replaced Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb.
Barrister Salman Safdar appeared on behalf of the PTI founder, while Punjab Special Prosecutor (PSP) Zulfiqar Naqvi represented the state. Both concluded their arguments, following which the CJP announced the bench’s decision.
However, Imran has multiple other cases against him. Imprisoned since August 2023 in a case related to state gifts, the PTI founder is serving a sentence at the Adiala Jail in the £190 million graft case and faces pending trials related to the May 9 riots.
The PTI hailed the SC ruling, using the hashtag “Victory For Imran Khan” in its X post. In November 2024, a Lahore anti-terrorism court had denied Imran bail in the cases related to the May 9, 2023 riots, including an attack on the house of the Lahore corps commander.
On May 9, 2023, PTI supporters, protesting Imran’s arrest, staged violent protests throughout the country, vandalising military installations and state-owned buildings, while also attacking the Lahore corps commander’s residence. Following the riots, thousands of protesters, including party leaders, were arrested.
In November 2024, a Lahore anti-terrorism court had denied Imran bail in the cases related to the May 9, 2023 riots, including an attack on the house of the Lahore corps commander. The incarcerated PTI leader’s plea challenging that was also rejected by the Lahore High Court (LHC) on June 24. Subsequently, days later, Imran had challenged that dismissal before the apex court.
The incarcerated PTI leader’s plea challenging that was also rejected by the Lahore High Court (LHC) on June 24. Subsequently, days later, Imran had challenged that dismissal before the apex court.
The hearing
At the outset of the hearing, the Punjab prosecutor informed the court that he could not appear yesterday due to illness.
CJP Afridi, noting he had two questions from Naqvi, asked, “You must have read the Lahore High Court’s verdict. Can a final observation be made in a case of bail?”
During the hearing on August 12, the chief justice had raised questions over some observations made by the LHC, noting that the SC would not touch upon the legal findings so as not to affect any party’s case.
Asking his second question, the CJP said, “This same court (LHC) gave bail to a suspect on the charge of conspiracy. Will the principle of precedence not apply to this case?”
The prosecutor responded that a court’s observation in a bail case was always of an “interim nature” and it does not have any impact on the trial.”
When the hearing resumed after a brief break, the prosecutor requested that the court allow him to assist on the merits of the case.
However, CJP Afridi observed, “We will not allow anyone to argue on the merits of the case. You may only answer the legal questions pertaining to the conspiracy charge.
“Show me a case where the Supreme Court has denied bail on conspiracy charges.”
He further said, “The Supreme Court has granted bail in two cases of similar allegations. Prove that your case is different from other cases.
CJP Afridi directed Naqvi to inform him about the details of the decision regarding the bail rejection and then read out the decisions in the court.
Following a brief break, Naqvi read out the bail approval decision in the Ejaz Ahmed Chaudhry case.
“You talk about conspiracy in the case. Is there any case in which there was a conspiracy and bail was rejected?” he questioned the prosecutor.
“Bail was granted in all the conspiracy cases that came up in the SC recently. The SC has granted bail in three cases of similar allegations,” he said, urging him to prove how the case was different from other conspiracy cases.
“There will be no evidence in conspiracy cases where bail was granted in the SC,” according to Naqvi. He argued that there was evidence of conspiracy on social media in the current case.
“You will not talk on merit at the stage of bail,” CJP Afridi remarked.
Meanwhile, Barrister Safdar said that he had data of all the bail cases related to conspiracy charges.
“The charges against Ejaz Chaudhry were of presence and conspiracy at the scene,” Justice Siddiqui said while Justice Rizvi questioned if Chaudhry was present on the spot on May 9 to which the prosecutor did not respond clearly.
“You are a prosecutor and you do not know the basic thing,” Justice Rizvi remarked while the chief justice questioned what evidence there was against Imran.
Naqvi said that the statements of three witnesses had been presented as evidence. “PTI founder has a central role in all cases,” he contended.
At this, CJP Afridi said, “If we go on merit, Salman Safdar will also speak.”
He added that the trial would be affected if the SC gave its observations on merit.
“My job was to warn you. The rest is up to you,” he stated and asked for other evidence in the case.
Justice Siddiqui asked, “What was the date of the FIR against the suspect?”
“The suspect is named in three out of 10 cases. The FIR was registered on May 9,” the prosecutor answered.
He said that the SC allowed the trial court to approach the court to conduct three tests of the founder, adding that the police approached the magistrate for voice matching, photogrammetric and polygrammatic tests.
“Despite the court’s permission, the suspect denied conduct of the tests,” he added.
“If that is the case, there will be legal consequences,” CJP Afridi remarked.
“Are such tests normally conducted in other cases as well?” Justice Hassan Rizvi asked.
According to Naqvi, the law prohibited bail for the suspect. “There is solid evidence against the suspect,” he said.
“After the incident, the suspect was on bail for two months until his arrest,” Justice Rizvi said. He asked whether the two-month period was not enough for the police investigation.
The court approved eight bail applications of PTI founder following Naqvi and Safdar’s arguments.
