The Islamabad High Court (IHC) clubbed on Thursday ousted premier Imran Khan’s pleas pertaining to the cypher case against him, with Chief Justice Aamir Farooq stating that the hearing will be held before October 17, the date of indictment given by the trial court.

CJ Farooq was hearing miscellaneous petitions filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairperson in connection with the charges against him under the Official Secrets Act.

Imran’s counsel advocate Sardar Latif Khosa appeared before the court. He prayed the court to stay the ongoing trial and prevent the special court from conducting proceedings inside Adiala jail premises.

The matter is ongoing in the high court, which has reserved its verdict, yet the trial court has fixed the date for indictment, he said, adding that the Lahore High Court (LHC) has also issued a stay in case filed by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).

Advocate Khosa said that his team apprised the trial court of this but a date for indictment was set regardless.

Imran’s counsel maintained that the defence has concerns regarding the Official Secrets Act and the charges framed against the ousted premier. He asked what security was comprised and which secret was leaked while citing the example of former president Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

“Bhutto Sahib also gave a speech in Raja Bazaar and then what happened. My client is a national hero and the world knows that he is innocent yet impriosoned,” said advocate Khosa.

Read IHC to announce verdict on Imran’s plea against jail trial soon

CJ Farooq observed that the matter before the court today (Wednesday) is of miscellaneous pleas. He asked whether the counsel wished for them to be clubbed with the main case.

Advocate Khosa agreed to this but requested that the court take up the matter before October 17.

When the IHC chief justice inquired what was significant about October 17, advocate Khosa said that it is the date on which the trial court has decided to indict Imran in the cypher case.

CJ Farooq said he would issue an order in this regard and fix the matter before October 17.

Indictment in cypher case

On Wednesday, the PTI chairperson had challenged the special court’s October 17 indictment order in the cypher case before the IHC.

The former prime minister through his counsel, Sher Afzal Marwat, has requested the court to declare the special court’s October 9 order null and void.

In his plea, the former prime minister stated that the special court had asked him to receive copies of the case, but he has not done so, adding that the court was initiating the process of indictment without waiting for the IHC’s ruling on his plea challenging the in-camera proceedings of the cypher case.

Two days ago, a special court established under the Official Secrets Act formally commenced the cypher case trial of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan and Vice Chairman Shah Mahmood Qureshi, setting October 17 as the date of their indictment.

Special Court Judge Abul Hasanat Zulqarnain ordered the distribution of copies of the charge sheet among the accused, rejecting the defence’s plea for delaying the process until the reserved ruling of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on their plea against the in-prison trial was announced.

Read more ‘Missing cipher’ stokes legal troubles for Imran

However, both Imran and Qureshi refused to receive copies of the charge sheet and sign the relevant documents. Their lawyers complained that the law and the rules were not being followed and that they would challenge the decision in the IHC.

Also, the IHC said that it would pass an appropriate order in the petition, seeking the provision of facilities, security and permission to meet family and personal doctor to chairman PTI in Adiala Jail.

The court sought comments from respondents on the appeal.

A division bench comprising Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb and Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir heard the intra-court appeal of the PTI chief seeking amendment to the verdict of the single-member bench.

At the outset of the hearing, chairman PTI’s counsel Sher Afzal Murawat said that the former prime minister should be given the facilities as he deserved under the law.

The bench had not ordered to provide B-class to his client in jail. The lawyer said that Imran was not allowed to meet his personal doctor, lawyers and family members.

On the query of the bench, the lawyer said that they were also demanding permission for his client to use an exercise machine. The court said that then it would be summoning comments from the respondents to know their stance.

Further read Official Secrets Act, Army Act challenged in SC

It said that the court would also seek implementation reports from authorities on the decision of the bench. The further hearing of the case was then adjourned.

Moreover, the IHC is also scheduled to hear the bail application of the PTI chairman who was arrested under the Official Secrets Act. The hearing will begin at 2pm.

Chief Justice Amir Farooq will hear the arguments from PTI’s lawyer regarding the bail application in the cypher case. Following that, the special prosecutors from FIA will present their arguments.

During the previous hearing, Imran’s counsel Barrister Salman Safdar was unable to conclude his arguments and assured to finish them in 20 minutes during the next hearing.

The PTI chief had previously approached the IHC for post-arrest bail after the special court rejected his bail application.

In addition, Imran has submitted a separate application to the IHC to avoid arrest in NAB investigation and corruption cases involving 190 million pounds.

In the petition filed by Latif Khosa Advocate, the former premier has requested a halt to the implementation of the accountability court’s decision made on August 10.

He seeks an order to prevent his arrest until the final decision on the appeal. Imran has challenged the accountability court’s decision to dismiss bail applications due to non-appearance.

The accountability court had earlier rejected his bail application in the Toshakhana criminal case after he failed to appear, and this rejection is being contested in the IHC.