The lawyer representing Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan has raised concerns regarding his transfer from Attock Jail to Adiala Jail. Advocate Shiraz Ranjha, who is from the Legal Team of Imran Khan, during the arguments informed the Special Court (Official Secrets Act) that the transfer of Imran Khan was executed without seeking his consent, marking a significant point of contention for the petitioner contesting the case.
Request for Telephone Facility in Adiala Jail
While urging Superintendent Adiala Jail, Advocate Shiraz Ranjha moved an application before the Special Court, to grant Imran Khan access to a telephone facility, allowing him to communicate with his sons, residing in London as well as with the family members. It is pertinent to mention that a similar application was moved to Attock Jail administration but it was outrightly denied, citing restrictions for convicts under the Official Secrets Act.
Comparing Jail Environments
While talking to the media, Advocate Shiraz Ranjha revealed that living condition in Attock Jail was considerably better than the congested Adiala Jail. He further urged before the Special Court, that such restrictions should not apply to Imran Khan, who remained Prime Minister of Pakistan for a period of 3 and half years and has not been convicted yet of any such crime.
Read More: Usman Dar Resurfaces: A Shocking Revelation and Political Departure
Appeal for Additional Facilities
During the course of arguments, Advocate Ranjha also requested the learned judge Abual Hasnat Zulqarnain to allow the petitioner to avail telephone facilities and any other adding facilities betting a former Prime Minister of Pakistan. The learned advocate also cited his accomplishments as a World Cup lifting Cricketer and Philanthropist before the learned judge and asked for justice for his client who remained Prime Minister of Pakistan.
Imran Khan’s Preference for Attock Jail
During a hearing conducted in Attock Jail on September 26, Imran Khan showed his reluctance to be transferred to Adiala Jail. He had informed the judge special court that he would instruct his lawyers to withdraw the plea seeking the transfer, citing his adjustment to life in Attock Jail and the prolonged case proceedings.
Security and Facilities Petitioned by Imran Khan’s Wife
Separately, Imran Khan’s wife, Bushra Bibi, filed a petition through her counsel Sardar Latif Khan Khosa, requesting proper security and facilities for her husband in Adiala Jail. Advocate Sardar Latif Khan Khosa argued that Imran Khan was detained in unfavorable conditions that hindered his ability to offer prayers. He asked the court to allow Imran Khan to have homemade food, citing his family’s concerns about the jail administration potentially compromising his meals. In addition to the above request, the petition filed by Sardar Latif Khan Khosa also urged the Hon’ble Court to direct jail administration to allow Imran Khan to exercise and walk within the jail premises.
Amendment Application in Toshakhana Conviction Appeal
Moreover, Sardar Latif Khan Khosa also filed an application to amend the appeal filed before the Islamabad High Court and implead State as a party on the Election Commission of Pakistan’s legal counsel Amjad Pervaiz’s insistence and under the court’s agreement, citing it to be must-step before proceeding further in the matter.
Suspension of Verdict Sought
The appeal filed by Sardar Latif Khan Khosa serves a dual purpose. Not only does it earnestly request the court to set aside Imran Khan’s conviction in the Toshakhana case, but it also seeks the suspension of the verdict and, in an additional aspect, the disqualification of Mr. Khan, pending the conclusive adjudication of the appeal. This multifaceted legal maneuver underscores the gravity of the matter at hand and emphasizes the urgency with which Mr. Khosa wishes to address the allegations against Imran Khan, thereby highlighting the complexity and high-stakes nature of the ongoing legal proceedings related to the Toshakhana case.
Read More: CJP Qazi Faez Isa Advocates Quranic Guidance Over US Examples in SC Law Challenge
