By Special Correspondent
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Tuesday reserved its verdict on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman and former premier Imran Khan’s plea for permission to continue appearing in the court virtually.
In March, Khan had moved the court to permit him to appear before the Islamabad courts through a video link due to the “security threats”.
In a petition filed through Faisal Chaudhry advocate, the former premier – who is currently facing charges of hiding assets in the Toshakhana case – requested attendance at the subsequent hearings through video call citing ‘security concerns’. The petition added that Khan should be given “strict security” if he has to appear in federal capital courts.
IT is to mention here that a similar request was submitted before the Lahore High Court and last week, a special anti-terrorism court even granted Imran Khan one-time permission to attend the hearing through video-link in a plea for his pre-arrest bail in three criminal cases including an alleged attack on the police officials and setting ablaze state property in Zaman Park area of Lahore.
Islamaabd High Court Chief Justice Aamer Farooq presided over the proceedings today (Tuesday) where Salman Akram Raja presented Khan’s case. During the hearing, the IHC top judge observed that in criminal cases, need for appearance varies at different stages of the court proceedings. Imran’s lawyer cited Meesha Shafi versus Ali Zafar case where the former was allowed to continue her cross-examination via a video link. He also stressed that the PTI chairman faced grave security threats and that the cases against his client were “piling up on a daily basis”. “Right now, there are over 120 criminal cases filed against him,” the lawyer added.
Outcome of verdict to impact other cases: IHC
Raja also argued that the main reason for requiring the presence of an accused when charges are being framed, is for his own benefit, so that he could hear what he is being accused of” which he maintained, could be achieved with a virtual court appearance as well.
“Technology should be used, wherever it could be,” IHC Chief Justice Aamir Farooq remarked. “Nonetheless, this matter does not just concern PTI’s Imran Khan,” the judge said further, noting that the verdict on the plea would also impact other cases. “It can be deemed acceptable so long as the evidence is being gathered,” he said, but expressed reservations over granting the same kind of favour when charges are to be framed. Additional Attorney General Munawar Iqbal Duggal on the other hand held that presence of an accused is necessary for criminal trials. “So far, there are no such rules in place that could support their [Imran’s lawyer] arguments,” the AAG said further.
Justice Farooq, however, noted that the Criminal Procedures Code 1898 predated recent technological developments and said that he favoured use of the latest technologies.
The AAG argued that there were procedures in place for amending the laws, to which the court responded by asking if he was implying that permission to this effect could not be granted until rules were amended. The court observed if all legal conditions are being met with, the trial could be continued via a video link.
Duggal however expressed reservations, asking if accused could even be granted the same relief if they are outside the country”. Raja, Imran’s lawyer, on the other hand held that if an individual is “not a fugitive” and “willing to give an undertaking that he would not leave the country” then such permissions should be granted. He also suggested that the court could direct Imran Khan to appear at a location of its choice in Lahore. After hearing all the arguments, the court reserved the verdict.
