By On Wednesday, the Lahore High Court asked the prosecution to explain why PTI founding chairman Imran Khan’s physical remand was necessary in connection with the May 9 riots, including the attack on the Lahore corps commander’s residence.
A division bench, consisting of Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh and Justice Anwarul Haq Pannun, continued hearing a petition from the former premier challenging his physical remand in 12 criminal cases related to last year’s violent attacks on military facilities and other properties.
When questioned by the bench, Prosecutor General of Punjab Syed Farhad Ali Shah stated that 37 cases were filed in response to the May 9 riots across Punjab, with 18 of those in Lahore.
The bench inquired how many of these cases involved Khan, to which Mr. Khan’s lawyer, Barrister Salman Safdar, responded that there were 20 cases against Khan, all based on similar allegations of abetment.
The prosecutor mentioned that interim pre-arrest bails for Khan were pending, and thus his arrest had not been executed in these cases. He added that new suspects were being arrested, and identification parades and other procedures were ongoing. Barrister Safdar highlighted that the arrest came after a delay of 14 months.
Justice Sheikh questioned why Khan was not arrested during his imprisonment in other cases. The prosecutor responded that simultaneous arrests and interrogations of all suspects were not feasible.
“If your conduct remains the same, these cases will drag on indefinitely,” Justice Sheikh remarked. He also asked why the police had not filed an interim challan in the trial court if Khan was not being interrogated. The judge noted that if Khan was not cooperating with the investigation, the police should have declared him an absconder.
The bench then asked Khan’s counsel about any objections to the remand proceedings. The lawyer objected to the entire remand, arguing that the trial court’s order was legally flawed and that Khan’s attendance was not marked via video link. He emphasized that the purpose of remand is to ensure the suspect is not tortured in police custody.
The bench concluded that the prosecution must justify the necessity of remand and adjourned the hearing for further arguments.
