Imran, Bushra challenge £190 million case convictions in Supreme Court

In their petition, the couple requested the apex court to set aside the Islamabad High Court’s ruling, suspend their sentences and order their release. They argued that the IHC overlooked key legal and factual aspects of the case despite declaring their applications maintainable.

The appeal stated that Imran Khan had developed an eyesight-related medical condition during imprisonment and had been taken outside jail for treatment. It also claimed he had suffered mental distress due to alleged solitary confinement and had not been granted appropriate relief despite health concerns.

The petition further argued that hearings on the sentence suspension applications had been repeatedly delayed and maintained that courts are empowered to examine the merits of a case while deciding such pleas. It also alleged that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) sought repeated adjournments, delaying the legal process.

Aleema Khan Adiala Jail Demands: PTI Links KP Funds to Imran’s Rights

The petitioners contended that their arrest was unlawful and politically motivated, arguing that accountability proceedings violated the principles of a fair trial. They also maintained that constitutional courts have jurisdiction to hear their appeal.

Separately, the Islamabad High Court heard petitions seeking an end to the alleged solitary confinement of Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi. Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro directed the registrar’s office to assign numbers to the petitions filed by Aleema Khan and Mubashra Maneka before fixing the matter for hearing again the following day.

During the proceedings, counsel Salman Safdar told the court that both prisoners were facing health issues and claimed they were being held in solitary confinement, adding that access to medical reports had not been provided.

In another hearing, a division bench of the Islamabad High Court disposed of contempt petitions filed by Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi after declaring them ineffective, observing that the issue concerning signatures on powers of attorney had already been resolved.