ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday suspended Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s sentence awarded to him in the Toshakhana case, but he will stay behind bars as he has been re-arrested in the cipher case.

Imran was subsequently sent on judicial remand till August 30 by Official Secrets Act court judge Abual Hasnat Muhammad Zulqarnan. The trial would also be held in the Attock Jail today (Wednesday).

Zulqarnan, Judge Special Court No.1 (Anti-Terrorism), Judge Designated Court (Official Secrets Act, 1923), directed superintendent Attock Jail to keep PTI Chairman Imran Khan in judicial lockup and produce him on August 30 before this court in the cipher case.

“That accused Imran Khan Niazi, s/o Ikramullah Khan Niazi, r/o Zaman Park, Lahore, is hereby ordered for judicial remand in case FIR mentioned above, who is already detained in district jail, Attock.”

The hearing of the case would be conducted in Attock Jail, according to a notification of the Ministry of Law and Justice. The special court has sent the written verdict to the Attock Jail superintendent. The judge remarked that the suspect is on judicial remand in a case under the Official Secrets Act. The suspect should be kept in jail and presented in court on August 30 Wednesday (today). Citing security concerns by the Interior Ministry, the notification of the Ministry of Law and Justice expressed its no objections to Imran Khan’s trial in Attock Jail on Wednesday (today) under the Official Secrets Act 1923 (Act no XIX 1923).

Reacting to the rearrest, Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, the PTI chief’s counsel, said: “Imran legal team was intentionally left uninformed and kept in the dark. This constitutes a manipulation of justice.”

The cipher case pertains to a diplomatic cable which reportedly went missing from Imran’s possession. The PTI alleges that it contained a threat from the United States to oust Imran from power. Proceedings against PTI Vice Chairman, former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, in the same case are also underway.

Earlier, the IHC announced the short verdict, which it reserved on Monday, wherein it directed the authorities to release the PTI chief on bail. The court directed the PTI chief to submit a surety bond of Rs100,000 against the bail. Member of PTI’s legal team Barrister Gohar said that the surety bonds have been prepared as per the court’s directives and will be submitted after the acquisition of the court order’s copy.

In the order issued in the evening, the court noted that the three-year jail term awarded to Imran “qualifies as a short sentence”.

“The arguments raised by both sides as to the jurisdiction and other issues involve a deeper appreciation of the matter which at the stage is not warranted, especially, where the sentence is a short one […],” it said.

The court pointed out in the order that even though long arguments were presented by both sides, such questions were left to be decided at the stage when the appeal was taken up for adjudication.

“For the above reasons, the instant application is allowed and the sentence awarded by the trial court dated Aug 5 is suspended; consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the instant matter subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the deputy registrar (judicial) of this court,” it ruled.

The verdict comes as a relief for Khan who had challenged his conviction and sentence awarded to him in the Toshakhana case. Earlier this month, a District and Sessions Court in the federal capital had sentenced Khan to three years in prison and imposed a fine of Rs100,000, after finding him guilty of corrupt practices related to the State Gift Repository — in a move that barred him from contesting elections due later this year.

The former prime minister, who has been disqualified from holding any public office due to the conviction, was arrested immediately after the trial court’s ruling on August 5 and has since been incarcerated in the Attock Jail.

Subsequently, Khan petitioned the high court against the Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADSJ) Humayun Dilawar’s decision to convict him in the Toshakhana case filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

On Monday, a division bench comprising IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri concluded the proceedings on the plea and reserved the verdict. Before the conclusion of proceedings, the counsel representing the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) Amjad Pervaiz presented his arguments opposing the pleas by the PTI chief. All the members of the Election Commission of Pakistan unanimously approved filing of the complaint in their decision, the lawyer remarked.

Amjad Pervaiz said the trial court held 44 hearings out of which Imran Khan only appeared in four. PTI counsel Sardar Latif Khan Khosa had focused on three aspects — suspension of his client’s short sentence, jurisdictional defect and improper authorisation — to defend the plea.

However, the electoral body’s lawyer termed the objections to the maintainability of ECP’s complaint as baseless during Monday’s hearing. He claimed that witnesses presented by the defence were not relevant as these were tax consultants, whereas the complainant accused the ex-PM of submitting a false declaration of assets. He also objected to the request for suspension of Khan’s sentence, saying this was not a matter of right but the discretion of the court, which could be exercised judiciously.

Ahead of the Toshakhana verdict, the PTI filed a new plea seeking the court’s directive to stop the authorities from arresting PTI chairman in any case. The plea was filed in the IHC by the PTI chief’s lawyer Salman Safdar. The petition was filed in the court to restrict the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), National Accountability Bureau and police from arresting Khan.

Meanwhile, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) core committee strongly condemned the re-arrest of PTI Chairman Imran Khan in a “frivolous cipher case” despite the clear orders of his release by the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

The PTI core committee termed the cipher case as ‘frivolous and meaningless’, demanding an open hearing of the case, which was one of the over 180 false, fabricated and fake cases registered against the PTI chairman under a nefarious plan to force him to shun his struggle of making Pakistan an independent country in true sense.

The PTI members said the Constitution and law guaranteed his (Imran Khan) complete freedom and release from prison but the extra-constitutional and democratic elements occupying the state were adamant to keep him in the prison.

The PTI committee stated that like a judge who sentenced PTI chairman to jail in the Toshakhana case by flouting all rules and regulations, the judge of the special court also kept him in prison in total disregard of the Constitution and laws. They said that the unacceptable decision of the special court in the Cipher case was a complete negation of the criminal code and totally against the law of the land.

The participants of the meeting were of the view that it was essential to present the accused in court to obtain physical and judicial remand under Section 167 of the Criminal Code. They contended that the PTI chairman, who was illegally imprisoned in Attock Jail, was neither presented before the special court nor the decision of his remand made public prior to the release order of the IHC. They said that the date and time of conducting the trial on the said decision of the Special Court was not mentioned, adding that the arrest in another case after being released in one fake and false case was also a clear negation of the recent decisions given by Chief Justice Peshawar High Court and IHC Judge Justice Babar Sattar. The PTI core committee said that the continuous deviation of the sub-courts from the rules and regulations in the case of PTI chairman was a moment of great concern for the entire judicial system, fearing it could preclude the complete collapse of the justice system of the country. They expressed alarm that the widespread lawlessness, naked use of state power and constitutional violation in the country at the behest of extra-constitutional and law-enforcement forces were creating existential threats for the country.