SC rejects plea against BHC’s decision to quash FIR against PTI Chairman

SC rejects plea against BHC's decision to quash FIR against PTI Chairman

ISLAMABAD, Jul 04 (APP):The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the plea against the Balochistan High Court’s decision to quash the First Information Report (FIR) and arrest warrant filed against the PTI chairman in connection with the killing of senior lawyer Abdul Razzaq Shar in Quetta.

A two-member SC bench comprising Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan and Justice Ayesha A Malik heard the case filed by Imran Khan against his nomination and arrest warrant in the case of the senior Supreme Court lawyer who was killed in Quetta.

During the course of proceedings, Chairman PTI’s lawyer Latif Khosa read out the murder case of lawyer Abdul Razzaq Shar and said that the son of the slain Lawyer Abdul Razzaq Shar filed a case against Imran Khan under terrorism provisions. Latif Khosa insisted that his client’s life was in danger.

Justice Ijaz asked who determined the imposition of terrorism provisions in the case. The lawyer said that the primary responsibility lied with the SHO of the police station.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan asked that if the SHO’s decision was wrong, would an application be made against it in the ATC or not?

When the lawyer said that a non-bailable arrest warrant had been issued for Chairman PTI, Justice Ayesha Malik asked whether the constitution of joint investigation team (JIT) was challenged.

Latif Khosa said that he did not know what was happening against his client and SHO could not impose terrorism provisions at the stage of investigation.

The lawyer said that Imran Khan was still coming to Islamabad, but he had stopped him from coming to the Supreme Court, on which Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that this case was to quash the FIR and there was no need for Imran Khan to come.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that if he wanted more relief, request the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

The Supreme Court rejected the request for injunction and interim bail against the decision of the high court and sought the details of the case from the government lawyer.

The court also issued notices to other parties including the Advocate General and Prosecutor General Balochistan.
Subsequently, hearing of the case was adjourned till date in office.

APP Services