Islamabad:
The Supreme Court rejected on Wednesday the Punjab government plea for the physical return of the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf Imran Khan.
A three -members SC bank headed by Judge Hashim Kakar heard the case.
The Punjab government lawyer argued that the physical return of the accused was necessary to perform photogrammetric analysis, polygraph tests and voice coincidence.
Judge Hashim Kakar observed that the appeals were presented only by the physical return of the accused, noting that no request for evidence had been made. He questioned why the Punjab government sought a physical rhetoria after a delay of a year and a half, adding that at this stage, there was no justification to grant said request.
The special prosecutor said that the founder of PTI was not cooperating with the investigating team.
Judge Kakar commented what type of cooperation an imprisoned accused in prison is required. The judge suggested that the evidence could be done after seeking permission from a court of first instance.
The special prosecutor said that the investigating team went to jail to roast the founder of PTI on July 14, 2024, but the defendant refused to cooperate. He said that Facebook, Twitter and Instagram Record contain the messages of the PTI founder who threatened to celebrate protests if Imran Khan was arrested.
Judge Salah Uddin Panhwar commented if these messages are saved on a USB device, make the coroner. He observed that the police do not perform such evidence in a case of ordinary murder, asking why the police are not so active in cases of ordinary murder.
Judge Kakar said that if the court makes an observation, it will affect the trial.
Later, the court dismissed two appeals presented by the Punjab government for Imran’s physical return.
The Court commented that the Prosecutor’s Office is free to transfer the Court of First Instance for polygraph, photogrammetric and voice correspondence evidence. He also noted that the legal team of the founder of PTI could raise legal and objective objections in such an appeal in the Court of First Instance.
