- Pakistan court gives big relief to Imran Khan
- Terrorism charges dropped
- Shehbaz Gill has already got bail
Pakistan News: In a major relief to former Prime Minister Imran Khan, a Pakistani court on Monday ordered the removal of terrorism charges against him in a controversial remarks against a woman judge. During a rally here on August 20, 69-year-old Khan had threatened to register a case against top police officials, the Election Commission and political opponents for the behavior of his colleague Shahbaz Gill. Gill was arrested on charges of sedition. Khan had also criticized Additional District and Sessions Judge Jeba Choudhary, who had granted two-day custody of Gill on the request of the police.
He had said that Justice Choudhary “should be ready as action will be taken against him”. A case was registered against Khan under the Anti-Terrorism Act for threatening the police, judiciary and other institutions hours after the speech. He challenged the matter in the Islamabad High Court where a two-member bench headed by Chief Justice Athar Minallah heard the matter. Announcing the verdict, the bench ordered quashing of the charges against Khan under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act and said the matter would continue to be heard in the respective forums on other charges.
Shahbaz Gill has got bail
A High Court in Pakistan on Thursday granted bail to Shahbaz Gill, a close aide of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, in a sedition case. Gill had made a controversial remark during a TV interview urging the army officers not to follow the orders of their superiors. After this, he was arrested on 9 August. After the bail applications were rejected by the lower courts, he had moved the Islamabad High Court. High Court Chief Justice Athar Minallah presided over the hearing.
Was told the matter was politically motivated
Gill’s counsel Salman Safdar argued that the case against his client was registered with malicious intent and was politically motivated. He said ‘Investigation is complete, the whole matter was based on a speech.’ The Chief Justice asked sharp questions to Gill’s lawyer in the matter of speaking against the Armed Forces, but the lawyer read Gill’s speech and argued that the petitioner had exaggerated his statements. He said that the petitioner is not even the affected party. After this the stance of the court softened.