مضمون کا ماخذ : Thuật toán bắn cá
LHC reserves decision on Imran’s plea against FIRs
The Lahore High Court’s (LHC) larger bench on Friday reserved decision on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan’s plea seeking direction to concerned quarters for not taking any coercive measures and proceeding in connection with 121 FIRs registered against him, a private TV channel reported. During the hearing, the bench’s head Justice Ali Baqar Najafi directed […]
The Lahore High Court’s (LHC) larger bench on Friday reserved decision on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran KhanR17;s plea seeking direction to concerned quarters for not taking any coercive measures and proceeding in connection with 121 FIRs registered against him, a private TV channel reported.
During the hearing, the bench’s head Justice Ali Baqar Najafi directed ImranR17;s counsel Barrister Salman Sardar to complete his arguments. Sardar argued that there is not even a single decision on political victimization since 1974, adding that “there is no example of what is happening around us”. He then requested the court to pass an order relating to political victimization following the prevailing circumstances. He implored the court that the former prime minister is around 71 years old but criminal cases are being registered against him. The law officer, opposing the petitioner’s counsel’s arguments, said all records of cases have been given to the petitioner. He submitted that Imran had filed a plea in the Supreme Court (SC) seeking the formation of the judicial commission on the May 9 riots and had also requested the apex court to stop further proceedings against him. He then questioned how could Imran file a similar petition in the LHC after one has already been filed in the country’s top court. To this, Justice Najafi asked the petitioner’s counsel if he had also filed a similar petition in the apex court. The petitioner’s counsel nodded in return and Justice Najafi then questioned “should you have not withdrawn this petition from here?”
Sardar then sought some time from the bench to continue his arguments in detail. As the permission was granted by the bench, he asked the police how could several cases could be registered against Imran when he was in the custody of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). On a point, Justice Anwaarul Haq Pannun asked the PTI chief’s counsel if the petitioner got bail in cases registered after May 9. As the counsel nodded, Justice Pannun remarked that “you should place your arguments, relating to the evidence the police replied upon, before the relevant court”. During the hearing, Justice Aalia Neelum said “you [Sardar] had been telling us about the registration of more than 100 cases against the petitioner”.
