According to sources, a production order has been issued by a local court in Islamabad for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and party leader Shah Mahmood Qureshi. The order directs the Adiala jail authorities to present them before the court before April 20, 2024.
The district and sessions court issued the production order during a hearing concerning a petition related to the Parliament attack case, which demanded Khan and Qureshi’s presence in court proceedings.
Khan’s counsel, Naeem Panjotha, presented his arguments before Judicial Magistrate Mureed Abbas, who presided over the hearing. Panjotha informed the court that the superintendent of Adiala jail does not comply with court orders. He urged the court to ensure that the jail officials adhere to the orders and produce Khan before it. He added that jail authorities have been making excuses and that the PTI founder was not even being presented for a hearing via video link.
In response, the judicial magistrate acknowledged Khan’s confinement in Adiala jail and the challenges posed by the situation. While noting the availability of video link attendance, the magistrate emphasized the preference for physical attendance in the e-court. The former premier’s counsel requested the court order the authorities to present Khan in the courtroom. “The high court ruled that a meeting with a political leader can be done on video link,” Panjotha added. He further stated that the internet works in Adiala jail, but only in the case of the PTI founder, it stops working. “Adiala jail superintendent is afraid to bring PTI founder on video link,” the counsel said.
Earlier, Panjotha had filed a petition seeking Khan’s production for a hearing related to his acquittal in two vandalism cases during a long march, which was rejected by Judicial Magistrate Shaista Kundi due to security concerns. The magistrate raised apprehensions about potential security risks during Khan’s transportation to court. Panjotha argued that Khan had previously attended court proceedings voluntarily and stressed the government’s responsibility to ensure security. However, the plea was dismissed by the judicial magistrate, emphasizing the necessity of attendance on bail.
