Imran involved in the conspiracy of May 9, LHC rules


Listen to the article

The Superior Court of Lahore (LHC) ruled on Thursday that former Prime Minister Imran Khan was involved in a conspiracy behind the violent events of May 9, 2023, citing testimonies of two police officers.

The Court dismissed the request for bail after Imran’s arrest, observing enough reasons for criminal conspiracy and incrustation.

According to the detailed order, the statements of Inspector Ismat Kamal and the Assistant Subinspector (AS) Hassan AFZAL Place imran as the one that perpetrated meetings held on May 4 in the rest area of ​​Chakri, Rawalpindi, and May 7 and 9 in Lahore. The court said that this undermines the argument that Imran was in jail during violence on May 9.

“These statements attract the provisions of section 120-B and section 121-A of the Pakistan Criminal Code,” says the ruling. Both sections deal with the criminal conspiracy and the embedding of Motinin, which have serious legal consequences.

Read: LHC rejects Imran’s bond in eight cases of May 9

During the hearing, the court observed that Imran’s prior conviction in the case of trust of Al-Qadir was not answered. He also said that his alleged statements and actions had led to the loss of lives and damage to state property.

The Prosecutor’s Office presented audio and video clips, including transcripts prepared by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), which require a forensic examination. The authorities had obtained judicial permission to perform photogrammetry, polygraph and voice coincidence within the prison facilities. However, the researchers reported that Imran repeatedly refused to cooperate, hindering progress.

The court concluded that the charges are under the prohibit clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC), which prohibits bond in serious crimes. He did not find new circumstances to justify further investigation or bail release.

“In collective consideration of the facts … we are not willing to grant the bail after arrest to the petitioner,” said the court, dismissing the request directly.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *