On Tuesday, the Lahore High Court granted Imran Khan, chairman of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), his appeal for an early hearing of 121 charges made against him.
The court ruled that until the next hearing, “Imran Khan should not be illegally harassed.”
The PTI chief also requested an injunction barring law enforcement from arresting him in Zaman Park throughout the Eid holiday.
However, the highest court in the province determined that the lawfulness of any operation could not be challenged. The court postponed the matter until May 2. The court had already decided to withhold its verdict. In all 121 instances filed against him, the PTI chief had asked for bail.
The former prime minister, Imran Khan, had a petition against a probable operation at Zaman Park heard by a five-member bigger bench presided over by the chief justice.
Salman Safdar, an attorney for Imran Khan, told the judge that his client would be unable to get to the court during the Eid holiday if the police did take action in Zaman Park.
The public prosecutor said that he was unaware of such a plot. Imran Khan, chairman of the PTI, stepped up to the podium and opined to the court that an operation could be initiated on Eid. He claimed they had done this before when he was summoned to appear in Islamabad and that surgery had been performed at home.
The IHC has granted Imran’s bail request till May 3.
The PTI president had his bail extended in eight cases by the Islamabad High Court. Violence at the Federal Judicial Complex prompted police to file complaints at multiple locations. These locations include Golra, Bara Kahu, Ramna, Khanna, and CTD.
During the March 18 hearing of the Toshakhana case, police claimed that the PTI leader and party members were involved in attacks on police and the subsequent commotion outside the FJC in Islamabad.
The PTI leader’s attorney testified that Imran was required to appear in the LHC because of security concerns and that he could not be at the IHC.
Given the security concerns, Imran’s attorney requested that his client appears by video connection.
However, the court replied that permitting this technology would create an incorrect precedent because it was an uncommon remedy.