The Islamabad High Court (IHC) disposed of a petition filed by ex-premier Imran Khan’s wife Bushra Bibi seeking her transfer from her Banigala residence, which had been declared a sub-jail, to Adiala Jail.
Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb disposed of the plea due to Bushra Bibi’s lawyers failing to appear before the court.The former first lady was taken into custody on January 31 after an Islamabad accountability court sentenced her and Imran to 14 years in jail in the Toshakhana reference.
While the IHC on April 1 suspended their sentences in the Toshakhana reference, she remains in custody in the Iddat case. Imran also remains incarcerated in other cases.
Following the Toshakhana verdict, Bushra had arrived at Adiala Jail, where the National Accountability Bureau’s team was already present, to surrender to the authorities. Subsequently, she was taken into custody by the anti-graft watchdog.
However, she was moved to her Banigala home after it was declared a sub-jail in a late-night notification. Her shifting to the residence has been under discussion for weeks as she and her husband denied submitting any application to declare the residence a sub-jail.
Almost a week after her arrest, Bushra Bibi had challenged the residence’s status as a sub-jail, urging the IHC to let her complete her 14-year sentence in Adiala Jail.In a subsequent hearing, the Adiala Jail administration had opposed moving her back to the prison, claiming that overcrowding posed security threats for the former first lady.
Last month, Justice Aurangzeb had asked if the authorities sought permission from Imran before converting his Banigala residence into a sub-jail.A day ago, Bushra Bibi filed another petition before the IHC, alleging violations of her fundamental rights during her incarceration at Banigala.
After the hearing, Bushra Bibi’s lawyers Barrister Salman Safdar, Usman Gill and Khalid Yousuf Chaudhry filed a petition seeking to restore the now-disposed plea.
In the restoration plea, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, the lawyers contended that “unforeseen and severe traffic congestion around Serena Hotel and surrounding areas” had caused them to arrive late at the court.
“Despite the best efforts, including opting to proceed on foot, the counsel arrived at the courtroom at 10:20am,” the petition said. It asserted that the “delay was neither intentional nor within the control of the counsel”, and that the “non-appearance was not deliberate or neglectful”.
