ISLAMABAD:
A three-member Supreme Court bench will take up Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s bail application in the cypher case on November 22, according to a notice issued by the Registrar Office on Thursday.
The bench will be led by senior Puisne judge Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, and include Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Ayesha Malik.
Imran had challenged rejection of his bail application by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) as well as his indictment in the cypher case.
Earlier, Imran also challenged another IHC decision, relating to the cypher case.
The petition filed through senior advocate Latif Khosa, requested the apex court to dismiss the cypher case against Imran and PTI Vice Chairman Shah Mahmood Qureshi.
The IHC had dismissed Imran’s plea on October 27. In the meanwhile, a division IHC bench, comprising Justice Miangul Hasan Aurangzeb and Justice Suman Rifat Imtiaz heard the PTI chairman’s intra-court appeal against the jail trial in the cypher case.
Read More: FIA lists 28 witnesses in cipher case
The court extended the stay order on the jail trial till November 20. Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan informed the court that the courtroom in the Adiala Jail was small, but it did not mean that it was closed trial.
He stressed the cypher case trial was an open trial. The bench mentioned that the law section applied in this case carried death penalty.
However, the AGP replied that he hoped that this it would not happen. Justice Aurangzeb said that the case would be decided on the next hearing slated to be conducted on upcoming Monday.
In a seperate development, on Thursday, a new application was filed before the IHC for allowing the PTI lawyers to meet Imran.
Read More: Imran moves SC for bail in cipher case
The petition, filed by Sher Afzal Marwat, said that Babar Awan, Naeem Panjautha, Intzar Panjautha, Shehbaz Khosa, Shadab Jafri, Ali Ijaz Battar and Sameer Khosa should be allowed to meet the PTI chief.
In the petition, the PTI chairman said that the list of lawyers provided by him was changed to the jail authorities, He alleged that that the names of lawyers, representing him in various cases had been deleted.
He requested the court to allow his meeting with the said lawyers.
