F.P. Report
ISLAMABAD : Pronouncing a reserved verdict, a court in Islamabad on Thursday rejected the appeals filed by ex-prime minister and PTI founder Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi against the sentences given to them in the illegal marriage case.
District and Sessions Judge Afzal Majoka pronounced the verdict.
The judge had reserved the verdict two days ago on June 25.
Later, in a 10-page written order, the judge said both accused had no grounds for seeking suspension of their sentences. “The argument that Bushra is a woman; so therefore, the sentence given to her should be suspended and she should be released on bail is not strong,” he wrote, adding keeping these points in view the appeals of both husband and wife were rejected.
Opposition Leader in the National Assembly and PTI stalwart Omar Ayub Khan, on the other hand, announced he would challenge today’s verdict in the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
He said that the case was handled ‘politically’. “Justice should have been done in the case as it was between husband and wife,” Umar Ayub said, while another PTI leader Kanwal Shauzab said that Bushra Bibi was dragged into it.
Senior Civil Judge Qudrutullah just five days before the February 8 general elections, on February 3, 2024, had sentenced the former prime minister and his wife to seven years behind bars for contracting marriage during the period of iddat during which a divorced Muslim woman is supposed to remain indoors.
The couple then challenged the judicial magistrate’s order in the court of Islamabad District and Sessions Judge Shahrukh Arjumand. However, the judge on May 29 referred the case to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) for its transfer to another court after Maneka, Bushra’s ex-husband, expressed his distrust in him.
The IHC later listed the case for hearing in the court of Islamabad Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka. On June 13, the high court also ordered the court to decide the case within 10 days.
The couple’s conviction in the illegal marriage case was widely criticized by civil society, women activists and lawyers for being a “blow to women’s right to dignity and privacy” and “state’s intrusion into people’s private lives.”
Courtesy: 24News
