ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday issued notices to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) related to the acquittal pleas of ex-premier Imran Khan and his spouse Bushra Bibi in the new Toshakhana case.
In the case, the FIA accused the couple of retaining an expensive Bulgari jewellery set gifted by a foreign leader — including a necklace, earrings, bracelets, and rings — at a low price, saying it caused significant loss to the national exchequer.
Today’s hearing at the IHC was presided over by newly sworn-in Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas.
The couple were apprehended in the case on July 13, 2024, following their acquittal in the Iddat case the same day. They were indicted in the case by Special Court Central-I Judge Shahrukh Arjumand on December 15.
Judge Arjumand had already dismissed the couple’s acquittal pleas in November last year. Subsequently, earlier this month, the couple approached the IHC to appeal the rejection.
While Bushra was granted bail in the case from the IHC in October 2024, allowing her to be freed after nearly nine months of detention, last week’s conviction of the couple in the Al-Qadir Trust case has sent her back to jail.
A special court had last month already issued an arrest warrant for the former first lady in the case for failing to appear in court for the past 10 hearings.
Imran was granted bail in the case on Nov 20, 2024, but has remained incarcerated since August 2023 in a series of legal cases, which he claims were “politically motivated”.
In a judgment this month on Imran’s post-arrest bail petition in the case, the IHC declared that the PTI founder cannot be prosecuted for failing to deposit a Bulgari jewellery set — gifted by the Saudi crown prince — to the state treasury under the rules.
Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb had explained that only the submission of a receipt was mandatory, and not the gift itself, under the Toshakhana rules of 2018.
The hearing
At the outset of the hearing, Barrister Salman Safdar appeared as Imran’s counsel and requested the court to issue a stay order on the trial proceedings against the couple.
However, Justice Minhas responded that there were no legal precedents to issue a stay order on criminal proceedings at this stage.
He said he would issue a notice on the lawyer’s request as well as hear the representatives of the other respondents once they arrived.
During the hearing, Barrister Safdar cited various previous court judgements to back his arguments.
“The prosecution has argued that the [Toshakhana] gifts were received and given for appraisal,” he said, informing that the court orders for two bails in the case were also attached.
The counsel requested the court to issue a stay order on the trial proceedings against the couple, at which Justice Minhas observed that a trial court had indicted both the suspects while statements of witnesses were being recorded.
The judge said he would issue a notice to the other respondents to seek responses from them. “Let us issue notices in this [case],” he said, assuring Imran’s lawyer that the case would not be adjourned for too long.
“Let us listen to the other party as well and then we will see,” the judge added, at which Barrister Safdar lamented that it “meant I am not going from here with something [substantial]”.
To this, Justice Minhas said, “You have come here today for [the suspects’] acquittal. We can also direct the trial court to complete the proceedings soon.”
Imran’s counsel responded that the trial was proceeding with “great speed” and assured the court that he would appear whenever summoned. “If the trial court can summon me three times, then I have the right [to appear here]. There can also be daily hearings,” he said.
The lawyer reiterated his plea of a stay order on the trial proceedings in the case, at which the judge again remarked that the court would also hear the other parties.
Subsequently, the court issued a notice to the FIA, seeking a response from it by January 28 and adjourned the hearing till then.
At one point, Barrister Safdar also requested the court that the acquittal pleas be heard by another bench. Recalling that Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb had heard “five applications related to the case”, the lawyer requested that the case be transferred to him.
However, Justice Minhas highlighted that the cases heard previously were bail applications while this was a “separate matter”. “This court will hear the case. You should present arguments on the merits of the case.”
