The Islamabad High Court(IHC) on Wednesday rejected PTI Chairman Imran Khan’s plea to suspend his arrest warrant in Toshakhana court and ordered the petitioner to move to the trial court.
The IHC disposed of the PTI chief’s application for cancellation of his arrest warrant that was issued over his non-appearance in the case.
The high court directed Imran Khan to submit the affidavit with the district and sessions court. It further said if the trial court is satisfied, it could suspend the arrest warrant.
However, the warrant shall remain in force until the affidavit is submitted.
the IHC announced the verdict after reserving it earlier in the day and directed Imran Khan to submit the undertaking, wherein he assured that he would appear in court on March 18, to the trail court.
In the judgement, the IHC said that the trail court should decide on the former premier’s undertaking in accordance with the law and upheld the trial court’s order in the case.
IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq took up the petition filed by the PTI legal team. The party had filed the petition after police reached Zaman Park to arrest the PTI Chairman in Toshakhana case.
At the outset of hearing, the IHC judge asked Imran’s counsel, Khawaja Haris Ahmed, if he had addressed all the objections previously raised on the petition.
Haris said that the court had directed the PTI chief to appear before the court on March 13 however he was unable to do so.
During the proceeding, the former premier’s counsel presented an affidavit signed by Imran Khan and urged the judge to suspend the arrest warrants issued for his client. “Whether it was a civil court or a trial court, one must show respect to the court,” the IHC chief justice remarked.
Justice Farooq then remarked that a political party’s workers were attacking the police, adding that it was an attack on the state. The court then reserved the verdict.
A local court in the federal capital issued Imran’s arrest warrants and ordered the police to arrest Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan in the Toshakhana case once again over his non-appearance.
