IHC, n response to a petition from the PTI to have the terrorist charge against Imran dismissed, the decision was made by a two-judge panel made up of Chief Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz.
IHC Relief to Imran Khan:
The court mandated that the relevant forum would remain the location for further discussion of other parts of the dispute.
The PTI leader was charged with “terrorism” under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act after making contentious comments during a party event in the nation’s capital on August 20.
The former premier was charged with another offense for breaking Section 144. The FIR later received new portions, nevertheless, for which the PTI head had petitioned the courts.
Later, the Pakistan Penal Code sections 504 (intentional insult with a purpose to cause a breach of peace), 506 (the penalty for criminal intimidation), 186 (three-month imprisonment), and 188 (disobedience to an order validly proclaimed by a public servant) were added to the FIR.
Raja Rizwan Abbasi, a special prosecutor, was questioned by the chief justice regarding the joint investigation team’s assessment at the hearing on Monday (JIT).
According to the prosecutor, the terrorism sections of the JIT report were merited in this instance and were submitted to the court.
The judge was informed by Special Prosecutor Raja Rizwan Abbasi that a challan based on the terrorism-related accusations had been drafted.
Salman Safdar, Imran’s attorney, countered that the terrorism allegation must satisfy a few fundamental requirements, which he contended were not accomplished in this instance.
A justifiable request would have in that scenario “came from those who were targeted in the statement,” he continued, adding that “a case for terrorism can only be presented when an environment of apprehension and fear has been created, not at the mere potential of such an atmosphere being generated.”
According to Justice Minallah, “in this way you will open up the floodgate” if terrorist charges were brought against individuals based on the argument stated.
Who among politicians does not use such language?
He was instructed to “leave the topic” by the chief justice and avoid getting into specifics. Then he inquired as to whether Imran’s statements posed a risk of inflicting bodily harm. Abbasi retorted that the PTI leader’s comments went beyond mere physical harm.
Who said these statements remains to be seen. He is not your typical individual. That individual is a past prime minister and might potentially succeed as prime minister in the future.
The political party of Imran Khan has a sizable social media following. Imran Khan has both educated and ignorant supporters, according to Abbasi, who also noted that in his address, Imran stated he would be doing action rather than court proceedings.
The top judge mentioned that in the past, terrorism provisions had been abused, citing the case of later exonerated democratic senator Faisal Raza Abidi as an illustration.
Justice Minallah responded, If you could discover nothing more in the examination besides this speech then the concept no longer exists, in response to the attorney’s claim that Imran’s speech was by purpose.
