The Supreme Court found no proof that Imran disclosed the cipher to favor any country.

On Friday, the Supreme Court granted bail to former Prime Minister Imran Khan and former Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi in the cipher case. The court stated that the high court’s decision to deny bail was exercised perversely. The three-member SC bench, led by acting Chief Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, accepted their bail applications, subject to posting bail bonds for Rs one million each with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The SC emphasized the importance of a level playing field for fair elections, ensuring they reflect the people’s choice without manipulation or coercion. After reviewing the material, the court found insufficient incriminating evidence at this stage to suggest that Imran Khan communicated classified information in the cipher telegram for the benefit of a foreign power or compromised defense installations. The court converted the petitions into an appeal, overturning the Islamabad High Court’s orders.

Imran Khan and Shah Mehmood Qureshi appealed against the Islamabad High Court’s decision to deny post-arrest bail in FIR No 6/2023. The case, registered at Police Station CTW/FIA, Islamabad, involves offenses under Sections 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act 1923, along with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) 1860. The Supreme Court, in an order authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, expressed a tentative opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe, at this stage, that the petitioners committed the offense under clause (b) of Section 5(3) of the Act. However, the court acknowledged sufficient grounds for further inquiry, leaving the final decision to the trial court after recording evidence.

The court found that the high court’s denial of bail to the petitioners was exercised perversely, against the weight of available material. The order stated that these observations are tentative and should not influence the trial court. The concession of bail may be revoked if the petitioners misuse it, causing delays in the expeditious conclusion of the trial.

Justice Athar Minallah concurred with the order but appended a separate note. According to the FIR, Imran Khan is accused of communicating information from a secret classified document (a cipher telegram from Parep Washington, USA) to unauthorized persons, i.e., the public, distorting facts for personal gains in a manner prejudicial to state security. Additionally, he is alleged to have illegally retained a copy of the document.

Shah Mehmood Qureshi is accused of abetting Imran Khan in the alleged actions. The court noted that these actions are alleged to have directly or indirectly benefited the interests of foreign powers and caused loss to the state of Pakistan.

In the context of such offenses, bail under Section 497 (2), CrPC, is granted if, at any stage of the investigation, inquiry, or trial, the court finds there are not reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed the offense. Instead, there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into their guilt. The primary question before the court is whether there are reasonable grounds, at this stage, to believe that the petitioners committed the offense punishable under clause (b) of Section 5(3) of the Act or if there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into their guilt.

The court acknowledged one of the elementary principles of bail law, emphasizing that it cannot conduct a deep appraisal of the material on record but should make a tentative determination based on available material.

Upon examination of the material, the court found insufficient incriminating evidence at this stage. There is no indication that Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi communicated the information in the cipher telegram to the public with the intention or calculation, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of a foreign power. The disclosed information does not pertain to defense installations, nor did he disclose any secret official code.

As a result, the petitions were converted into appeals, the impugned orders were set aside, and the bail applications of the petitioners were accepted. They are required to furnish bail bonds of one million with two sureties each to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Justice Athar Minallah, in his separate note, emphasized that both petitioners plan to contest the upcoming elections scheduled for February 8, 2024. He underscored the importance of genuine elections for a level playing field among all stakeholders. The judge asserted that incarcerating a political competitor during the election period, except under exceptional circumstances, significantly impacts voters’ fundamental rights and compromises the genuineness and integrity of the elections.

Justice Minallah further argued that when political competitors face unequal advantages and disadvantages during the election period, citizens’ fundamental rights are violated, and the Constitution is gravely compromised. Ensuring equal treatment without discrimination for every political competitor is essential to provide everyone with an equal chance of success, according to the judge.

He stated that the incarceration of the petitioners would serve no useful purpose. Additionally, releasing them on bail during the election period would contribute to genuine elections, allowing people to express their will effectively and meaningfully. The judge concluded that there are no exceptional circumstances to decline the concession of bail.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has granted bail to former Prime Minister Imran Khan and former Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi in a cipher case. The court ruled that the discretion exercised by the high court in denying bail was exercised perversely. The decision emphasized the importance of a level playing field for healthy competition in elections, ensuring they reflect the people’s choice. The court found insufficient evidence to show that Imran Khan communicated classified information with the intention to benefit a foreign power. The bail applications were accepted, subject to the petitioners furnishing bail bonds. Justice Athar Minallah noted that both petitioners intend to contest upcoming elections, and he emphasized the importance of genuine elections and equal treatment for political competitors.

Justice Minallah, in his reflections, highlighted the historical context of political oppression and the denial of equal treatment during elections in Pakistan. He pointed to instances where elected leaders were incarcerated or forced into exile, preventing them from participating in the electoral process. The judge emphasized the need to consider bail favorably as a rule, especially in cases where political leaders are involved in offenses that do not pose a direct threat to society. He noted the completion of the investigation and the ongoing trial, which relies on documentary evidence. The judge’s remarks underscore the importance of ensuring a fair and transparent electoral process with equal opportunities for all political competitors.

The legal proceedings shed light on the intricacies of the case, with Salman Safdar presenting arguments on behalf of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. The defense raised questions about the FIA’s handling of the case, particularly in relation to the information about the Bani Gala meeting. The counsel emphasized the lack of a complaint from the Foreign Office, from which the cipher was purportedly received, and suggested that the case against the former premier might have political motivations. Additionally, concerns were expressed about the severity of potential penalties, arguing against the imposition of death sentence or life imprisonment. The courtroom dynamics and legal exchanges provide a glimpse into the complexities surrounding the allegations.

The courtroom dynamics became more intense as Acting Chief Justice Sardar Tariq Masood highlighted the dissemination of the cipher, even if not shared with anyone directly. Salman Safdar countered by pointing out the timeline discrepancy, emphasizing that the alleged cipher brandishing occurred on March 27, 2022, a day before the purported conspiracy meeting on March 28, 2022. Justice Athar Minallah intervened, noting that if the original cipher was leaked, it would be the Foreign Office’s responsibility.

The court’s direction to the petitioner, Chairman PTI Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, to seek redressal from the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) underscores the importance of a fair electoral process. The court stressed the urgency of addressing grievances to maintain transparency and uphold public faith in the democratic process. This development reflects the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring free and fair elections, emphasizing their significance beyond the outcome itself.

The legal tussle continues, and the focus has shifted to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The petitioner, Chairman PTI Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, expressed dissatisfaction with the ECP’s response to their complaints filed under the Elections Act, 2017. Both the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) and the ECP representative assured the court of fair and free elections in accordance with constitutional mandates. The court, emphasizing the urgency of addressing grievances promptly, directed the ECP to resolve issues raised by PTI and other political parties urgently.

During the proceedings, concerns were raised about the issuance of orders under Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) and the alleged hindrance in the filing of nomination papers for PTI candidates. The court, sensing the potential imbalance, directed the ECP to meet with political parties promptly. Justice Athar Minallah expressed a prima facie agreement with PTI’s claims of an unequal playing field, questioning why a political party was being pushed to the wall and emphasizing the importance of providing equal opportunities. The court’s proactive approach signals a commitment to safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process.