Iddat Case: Islamabad Court Rejects Imran, Bushra’s Pleas Seeking Suspension Of Sentence

In the 10-page verdict, the court mentioned that there was no reason to suspend the sentence.

Iddat Case: Islamabad Court Rejects Imran, Bushra’s Pleas Seeking Suspension Of Sentence

An Islamabad court on Thursday rejected an application filed by former prime minister and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi to suspend their sentencing in the nikkah during the Iddat case.

In a ten-page verdict announced in Islamabad District West Court by Additional Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka on Thursday, the court noted that "no grounds for suspension of sentence is available to both the petitioners."

The court then dismissed their application.

Imran and Bushra Bibi had moved the district court to challenge their February 3, 2024, conviction, in which they were sentenced to seven years imprisonment by an Islamabad magistrate for failing to observe the minimum period between divorce/dissolution of marriage and a nikkah. The court had on Tuesday reserved its verdict, with the hearing on the core petition connected to the annulment of their conviction scheduled for July 2.

Bushra's former husband, Khawar Maneka, had petitioned the court to annul the couple's marriage.

In its order, Additional Sessions Judge Majoka noted that Bushra Bibi's lawyer, Barrister Salman Safdar, contended that since his client was convicted under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), only bail bonds are to be submitted. He further argued that since appeals are a continuation of trials, only bail bonds need to be submitted under section 91 of CrPC. "Both the petitioners did not commit any fraud and dishonesty with anyone," the lawyer contended, adding that a fair trial was not provided to the petitioners which offends the provision of Article 10-A of the Constitution.

Moreover, the lawyer argued that Bushra Bibi was entitled to bail because she is a woman, a precedent for which was recognised in the Tahira Batool and Mst. Ghazala cases. 

However, the court noted that bail is considered when the petitioner is an accused but not when they have been convicted of the crime. "A person convicted of such an offence would not be entitled to bail under section 426 CrPC unless strong grounds are made to appear that conviction is not liable to be sustained," the court observed. 

Further, the court noted, "suffice it to say, that like the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 497 CrPC, there is no such provision in section 426 CrPC."

"Although no ground has been taken in petitions under section 426 CrPC, and during arguments that the petitioners convicted for an offence under Section 496 CrPC is bailable one, and petitioners are entitled to bail as a matter of right, yet this court has considered this aspect of the matter as well. Admittedly petitioners have been convicted for an offence under Section 496 CrPC which is bailable," it said, adding that grant of bail to a convict in bailable offences shall be an indefeasible and inalienable right, like an under trial person is entitled to, under Section 496 CrPC.

However, the court added that there could be no such general rule that a person convicted of a bailable offence is entitled to a right to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of his appeal against his conviction.

In reaction to the lower court's judgment, PTI Secretary General Omar Ayub Khan stated, "We will challenge the verdict in the high court immediately."

The PTI strongly condemned the ruling, calling it "absolutely ridiculous," and its leaders, who were hoping for Imran's release today, held a demonstration outside the Adiala jail, where the court was set up to safeguard the ex-prime minister's safety.