ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan moved the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday for bail in the Toshakhana and £190 million corruption cases.
The National Accountability Bureau (NAB), the director general of NAB, and the investigating officer have been named respondents in the applications.
Separate bail applications for each case were submitted, outlining the request for bail until the completion of the trial and the issuance of a final decision.
The application asserts that the charges against him are ‘politically motivated’ and ‘rooted in animosity’. Imran in his petition, recalls the stance of former NAB Chairman Aftab Sultan, who, despite facing pressure, had rejected the notion of creating politically motivated cases.
The accountability court, following Imran’s arrest, declined to grant him bail in both cases. NAB, last year, filed a reference against Imran and Bushra, accusing the couple of misusing the state’s gift repository—Toshakhana.
Previously, PTI categorically dismissed the Toshakhana reference filed against the party’s founder. The former ruling party described the case as “devoid of merit” and “a concocted fabrication.”
Last week, the lawyer for the PTI founder cross-examined NAB’s principal witness, Imran Masih. The party on January 21 issued a statement claiming that the reference now stands discredited following the witness’s statement in court, deeming it to be without foundation.
According to the PTI, Shehbaz Khosa, advocate for Imran , systematically dismantled the entire case during the cross-examination of Masih. The party alleged that NAB relied on images of Toshakhana’s jewellery sent to Masih, constructing the entire case based on the responses obtained from him.
The party asserted that Masih lacks any certification for the assessment of jewelry, including the absence of familiarity with the abbreviation “IGI,” which pertains to the relevant certificate for diamond grading. Furthermore, he does not possess any official documentation for his establishment, and even the proprietor remains oblivious to his identity.
PTI emphasised that the witness failed to furnish any written evidence regarding market research and appraisals conducted by jewellery establishments. Moreover, the salesman did not possess any letter from the company, authorising him for price determination and testimony in court.
