Disclosure in key points of written decision
Well, on Tuesday, the Islamabad High Court suspended Imran Khan's three-year prison sentence and fine in the Tosha Khana case, but he still has to wait for his release. Because there are many other cases against the former prime minister.
Soon after the court verdict, there was a debate that Imran Khan has been able to get relief from the judge who was defamed by his own party or saved by the courts due to strong arguments.
But the reason is none of these, the real reason is that Imran's sentence was too short.
The written order of Justice Amir Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri on the suspension of Imran Khan's sentence consists of nine pages and summarizes what happened in the proceedings.
It explained that Imran Khan's lawyer Latif Khosa pointed out several 'shortcomings' in the trial court's Tosha Khana verdict.
Latif Khosa argued that complaints can be filed within 120 days of submission of asset declarations, while the Election Commission delayed doing so.
It also added that the application was not filed by a 'selective person'.
Latif Khosa argued that jurisdictional issues should have been decided by the trial court before discussing the merits of the case.
Finally, Latif Khosa argued that Imran was not given a fair chance to defend himself as his witnesses were labeled as 'irrelevant'.
He also told the Islamabad High Court that the case was decided in "unnecessary" haste.
In response, Election Commission's lawyer Amjad Pervez also discussed the technical points.
He said that since Imran Khan has been imprisoned, he has been handed over to the state but the state has not been made a party to the case.
Amjad Parvez also argued that the appeal in this case should have been filed before the Sessions Court instead of going straight to the Islamabad High Court.
He also argued against Latif Khosa's point about the right to defense and said Imran chose not to appear in court despite being given multiple opportunities.
He said that Imran tried to make the operation 'fail'.
However, after all the arguments of the lawyers, the matter came to a point that whether Imran Khan's sentence can be suspended, or bail can be granted? Because this sentence was 'short'.
Latif Khosa argued that an appeal for suspension of sentence is actually tantamount to an appeal for bail and that Imran is entitled to bail as the sentence of three years is short.
Interestingly, one of the cases he cited was Nawaz Sharif vs Chairman NAB (2019).
Amjad Pervez said that it is not necessary to suspend every sentence.
In response, the Islamabad High Court said that the Supreme Court had ignored lengthy arguments in cases of suspension or bail.
The court also agreed with Latif Khosa that three years, or even five years for that matter, is a short sentence and is usually suspended.
The court further said that there is no need to argue the merits of the case at this stage.
The written judgment said that the arguments raised by both sides on jurisdictional and other issues involve a deep appreciation of the matter which has no merit at the suspension stage, particularly where the sentence is short.
Ultimately, the short length of the sentence given to Imran Khan led to the orders for his release.
