Lahore High Court rejects Imran Khan's 8 bail petitions in May 9 cases
The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Tuesday rejected post-arrest bail petitions of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan in eight cases related to May 9 riots, Aaj News reported.
A division bench of the high court, presided over by Justice Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi, announced the verdict, which had been reserved on Monday.
The PTI founder's counsel had filed bail pleas in eight separate cases in the LHC, including the attack on Jinnah House, Askari Tower, and Shadman Police Station, after an anti-terrorism court had dismissed these petitions.
During the proceedings, a prosecutor had maintained that Imran Khan had directed party workers and leaders to attack military installations if he were arrested.
The prosecutor informed the court that the PTI founder incited public sentiment against state institutions following his ouster from power.
He further stated that the former prime minister had refused to undergo both polygraph and photogrammetric testing and had repeatedly defied orders issued by the trial court.
Imran Khan's legal counsel, Barrister Salman Safdar, contended that his client was falsely implicated in these cases at a later stage, arguing that Khan had already been in custody on May 9 when the incidents occurred.
The prosecutor also told the court that the May 9 riots resulted in damage worth Rs40 million to police equipment, while the attack on the Lahore Corps Commander's residence, known as Jinnah House, alone caused losses exceeding Rs520 million.
Last month, an Anti-Terrorism Court in Islamabad sentenced 11 individuals, including PTI Member of the National Assembly Abdul Latif, to a total of 15 years and 4 months in prison, along with financial penalties.
The case stemmed from an incident on March 18, 2023, when a large number of PTI supporters accompanied Imran Khan to the Judicial Complex. Protesters forcibly removed security barriers, stormed the premises, damaged property, and disrupted court proceedings.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
an hour ago
- Business Recorder
LHC explains how a govt servant absent from duty can be sacked
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has held that a government servant who remains absent from his duty for less than one year cannot be removed from service without cogent reasons. The court said Section 4 of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (PEEDA) manifests that where absence from duty is for more than one year and same is proved, the authority has no option but to impose penalty of compulsory retirement or removal or dismissal from service. However, where absence from duty is less than one year, the authority under Section 4 of PEECA has discretion to impose penalty of compulsory retirement or removal or dismissal from service supported by cogent justification, in accordance with principles of proportionality, structured discretion and administrative fairness, the court added. The court passed this order on a petition of a government employee, Abusar Ghaffary, who was working as computer operator with the Punjab Emergency Services Department. The court allowed the petition and reinstating the petitioner into service and set aside impugned order and observed that no reasons are recorded to impose major penalty of removal from service against the petitioner. The court; however, held that the petitioner will not be entitled for back benefits as per the law. The petitioner's counsel submitted that under Section 7 (f) (ii) of PEEDA, where charge of absence of duty is less than one year, major penalty including removal or dismissal from service cannot be imposed. Admittedly, the regular inquiry against the petitioner was dispensed with under Section 5 (1) of the PEEDA and petitioner was removed from service under Section 4 (1) (b) (v) of PEEDA for being absent from duty for 63 days, the court observed. Where the regular inquiry is dispensed with, the procedure prescribed under section 7 of PEEDA is to be followed, the court added. The court also observed that the respondent keeping in view the principles of proportionality has not exercised discretion in structured manner. No doubt, in the impugned order, the petitioner's previous service record and penalties have been referred to; however, the said record was neither confronted to the petitioner nor petitioner was charge sheeted in show-cause notice on account of poor previous service record, the court added. The court said, when petitioner was already penalised previously, his current removal from service order on the basis of said previous penalties will amount to double jeopardy. The court; however, observed that the petitioner's reinstatement shall be subject to a fresh determination by the competent authority regarding the imposing of penalty against the petitioner, which must commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and after giving cogent reasons. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
an hour ago
- Business Recorder
PTI says not afraid of penalties & disqualification
LAHORE: Tensions in the Punjab Assembly deepened this week as opposition lawmakers condemned disciplinary actions against them following a protest during the provincial budget session, accusing the Punjab Assembly Speaker of acting on government directives and stifling dissent. Addressing the Assembly and media on Saturday, Opposition Leader Malik Ahmad Khan Bhachar declared that the opposition would continue its protest campaign 'inside and outside' the legislature, regardless of penalties or disqualification threats. 'We are not afraid of being de-seated or fined. It was the collective decision of our parliamentary party,' Bhachar said. He criticised Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan for allegedly refusing him the right to speak, despite procedural entitlements. 'When the opposition leader rises, he is entitled to the mic under assembly rules,' Bhachar argued. He also accused the Speaker of violating legislative procedures and taking dictation from Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz, rather than upholding neutrality as the house custodian. The protest, held during Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz's budget speech on Friday, saw opposition lawmakers chanting slogans, surrounding the Speaker's dais, and tearing documents. In response, the Speaker suspended over two dozen members, including Malik Fahad Masood, Tanveer Aslam, Riffat Mahmood, Yasir Qureshi, and others. He announced that references for disqualification would be submitted to the Election Commission and fines exceeding Rs2 million were imposed on 10 PTI lawmakers for previous disruptions. 'Protest is everyone's right, but it must remain within constitutional and procedural bounds,' the Speaker stated in a press conference. 'No member can be allowed to hijack the system.' Bhachar, however, remained defiant. 'This government behaves like a Pharaoh, but every Pharaoh has a Moses. Ours is already here — and he sits in Adiala Jail, cell 804,' he said, referencing incarcerated PTI founder Imran Khan. 'They stole our mandate using Form 47, took away reserved seats, and now want to rob us of our right to protest.' Speaking alongside PTI Secretary General Salman Akram Raja and senior leader Sardar Latif Khosa, Bhachar reiterated that their demonstration was peaceful and within democratic norms. 'If our criticism of authoritarianism is considered an insult, then we will continue to insult such tyranny,' he said, referencing the PML-N's own aggressive tactics during the previous government's tenure. Raja emphasised that the people of Pakistan demand dignity and democratic representation. 'It's a fallacy to assume the masses are indifferent. They have always voted for democracy and want their votes to count,' he said. He urged those wielding 'real power' to engage in dialogue and criticised the current administration as lacking legitimacy. 'This is a government on crutches, and even they admit they are operating under compulsion.' Raja added that PTI is open to aligning with other political parties if they commit to a genuine democratic struggle, not merely opportunistic alliances. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Reserved seats
Listen to article The much-awaited decision on reserved seats has cleared the air and now PTI is neither a parliamentary party nor is it eligible for the seats reserved for women and minorities in national and provincial assemblies. The judgment delivered on Friday by the Constitutional Bench under Justice Aminuddin Khan has set aside the July 12, 2024, eight-member majority decision of the Supreme Court, which had declared the PTI eligible for reserved seats. In fact, the Constitutional bench has restored the Peshawar High Court's original order that had outright dismissed the PTI's plea for reserved seats after it had changed its nomenclature to Sunni Ittehad Council on the floor of the house. Since the Sunni Ittehad had not taken part in the February 2024 general elections, the PTI taking refuge under its banner was infructuous, and goes on to endorse the claim held by the Election Commission. This was fait accompli for PTI, as its logic and argument on the reserved seats was found untenable, in the review petition, even by the honourable judges who had earlier voiced for it. The strength of the decision can be gauged from the fact that seven judges put their weight behind review pleas filed by ECP, PML-N and others, while three judges 'partially allowed' them'. The proceedings, likewise, saw a fair lawsuit as dissenting notes too were entertained as those of Justices Ayesha A Malik and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, and the last to the recuse was Justice Salahuddin Panhwar. The 12-judge judgment now makes it obvious that those who had earlier joined the Sunni Ittehad could face the defection clause under Article 63A of the Constitution, if they chose to rejoin PTI after this judgment. In principle, the PTI has had a fair hearing and now as per law, the reserved seats under Article 51 and Article 106 and the Elections Act will go to the coalition because the 77 seats cannot be kept vacant. With nine judges having corrected the error in the review petitions, it's time to walk straight and let the Constitution have its way.
