Latest NewsPakistanTrending Stories

Imran Khan’s Iddat Appeal to be Decided by July 8: Judge Afzal Mujokah

Imran Khan’s lawyer further said, “Mufti Saeed also deceived in his video statement.

ISLAMABAD: District and Sessions Judge Afzal Mujokah has stated that he intends to conclude the appeals against the sentence in the Iddat case of Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi by July 8 at all costs.

Additional Sessions Judge Afzal Mujokah of Islamabad’s District and Sessions Court heard appeals filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder and Bushra Bibi during the waiting period after their marriage, where Imran Khan’s lawyer Salman Akram Raja presented arguments.

Salman Akram Raja stated, “I saw an order on the application for suspension of sentence,” adding, “Some points of mine are not written in the decision.” The judge replied, “You have full time today and tomorrow.”

Salman Akram Raja further argued, “There is commonality in disgrace and fraud, there is intent. If fraud was committed, the court should have gone to the magistrate at that time, saying I wanted to refer, marriage took place one day, the next day Khawar Maneka came to know but kept silent.”

Judge Afzal Mujokah questioned, “If there was a right to refer, it is a civil matter, what is the connection with criminal?”

Read more: UN Working Group Declares Imran Khan’s Detention “Arbitrary,” Calls for Immediate Release

Referring to Supreme Court decisions, Salman Akram Raja said, “You cannot say that the Supreme Court judgments of 1992 and 1994 are ineffective and I did not say that the waiting period is 90 days.”

“After 39 days, the Supreme Court provided protection to the woman with its decision, and Mufti Saeed also said that the woman’s statement during the waiting period is final but made a wrong statement in court,” he added.

Salman Akram Raja argued, “It’s not the time of the 90-day waiting period, it’s the time of reference. It cannot be made a sword for the woman.”

“Khawar Maneka made a wrong statement in court. Khawar Maneka used the word ‘former wife’ for Bushra Bibi in his video statement,” he said.

Imran Khan’s lawyer further said, “Mufti Saeed also deceived in his video statement. Witnesses testified in the trial court that they did not know them, although Awn Chaudhry was standing with them.”

“Records show that political cases were made against Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi. Judge Shah Rukh Arjmand said to separate from the case on the day of the decision. Surely, the judge had pressure not to hear the decision on that day,” he said.

Salman Akram Raja said, “There are four witnesses, the trial court gave importance to the statement of employee Latif, Mufti Saeed’s testimony also proved false, Khawar Maneka relied on Latif’s statement and also made a wrong statement in the video statement.”

“It is not proven from the discussion of the second marriage that the waiting period was complete or not. It was a short-lived story that turned PTI into a revenge target,” he said.

At the end of the hearing, Judge Afzal Mujokah said that the court must conclude this case by July 8 at all costs.

Later, the court adjourned the further hearing of the case until 11 AM tomorrow.

Imran Khan’s wife Bushra Bibi Granted Bail in £190 Million Reference

RAWALPINDI: Bushra Bibi, wife of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan, has been granted bail by Accountability Court Islamabad Judge Muhammad Ali Waraich at Adiala Jail.

The bail was approved following arguments by Deputy Prosecutor General Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi, who highlighted the absence of an arrest warrant issued by the Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).

During the hearing, Sardar Muzaffar emphasized that without an arrest warrant, the bail application remains valid, noting a similar situation ten months prior when no warrant was issued for Bushra Bibi’s arrest.

The court adjourned further proceedings on the reference until July 5th. Legal representatives completed the cross-examination of three prosecution witnesses during the session, bringing the total number of witnesses examined in the case to 27.

The decision has sparked interest and discussions, underlining ongoing scrutiny over legal proceedings and accountability in high-profile cases.

Related Articles

Back to top button