A petition challenging a trial court’s verdict in the Toshakhana case against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief was filed in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday. The application was filed by lawyers Khawaja Haris and Barrister Gohar Ali Khan on behalf of the former premier. The petition will be taken up today (Wednesday) by a two-member bench comprising IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri. On August 5, a trial court in Islamabad had sentenced Imran to three years in prison in the case. The verdict also disqualified Imran from contesting general elections. Imran filed a petition in the IHC – through his lawyers – against the trial court’s August 5 verdict, saying that the said order was “not sustainable” and “liable to be set aside”. The plea named the district election commissioner of Islamabad as the respondent in the case. It stated that the judgment passed by the trial court judge was “tainted with bias, is a nullity in the eye of the law and is liable to be set aside”. Explaining the grounds for its request, the plea said that the Aug 5 order was passed “with the pre-disposed mind” of the trial court judge to convict and sentence the appellant “irrespective of the merits of the case”. It said the order was issued without providing the petitioner with a chance to fight his case and alleged that ADSJ Dilawar had refused to hear the arguments of Khawaja Haris, Imran’s counsel in the Toshakhana case, on the pretext that he was late – which the plea claimed was because he was filing other applications with the Supreme Court and IHC. “The impugned judgment was announced despite the fact that before commencement counsel for the appellant was very much in court fully prepared to address arguments after explaining the reasons for the delay in arriving in court, but the trial judge, who throughout the proceedings had been exhibiting his extreme bias towards the appellant and his counsel, and constantly using disparaging remarks against them, even in their absence, was bent on carrying out a well-orchestrated plan […].” This, the petition said, was a “slap in the face due process and fair trial” and “a gross travesty of justice”. It further alleged that the Aug 5 judgment was “already written” by the trial court judge, highlighting how the latter only took “30 minutes” to “dictate more than 35 pages” of the judgment. Moreover, the petition said the verdict was in violation of the IHC’s Aug 4 orders, in which the high court had asked the trial court to “decide afresh” on the PTI chief’s application pertaining to the maintainability of the Toshakhana case. Referring to the Supreme Court rules, the plea highlighted that “proceedings held by the learned trial court judge culminating in the conviction of the appellant in the instant case are corum non judice without jurisdiction thereby rendering the conviction and sentence of appellant void ab initio nugatory in the eyes of the law”. It also highlighted that there was not an “iota” of evidence presented by the prosecution regarding the Toshakhana gifts and none of the witnesses provided by the ECP presented evidence in the case. “The prosecution has not let any evidence whatsoever that the appellant had transferred any asset during any of the relevant financial years without adequate consideration or by revocable transfer.” The petition subsequently prayed that the trial court verdict be set aside, while also urging the court to declare Imran’s conviction and sentence “illegal and without lawful authority”, and to acquit him of the charges. PTI lawyers granted permission to meet Imran: Separately, the IHC granted Imran’s lawyers permission to meet the PTI chief at Attock Jail as the court took up a petition filed by the party seeking A-Class facilities for the ex-premier. It urged that Imran be allowed to regularly meet with his legal team, family members, personal doctor Dr Faisal Sultan and political aides – the lists for which were also submitted to the court. After his arrest, Imran was given B-Class facilities by the Punjab prisons department. However, his lawyers and the party claimed they were not allowed by the jail administration to meet the PTI chairman. A day earlier, Naeem Haider Panjotha, spokesman to Imran on legal affairs, was finally allowed to meet the PTI chief. Talking to reporters after the meeting, which lasted one hour and 45 minutes, the lawyer said Imran was being kept in “distressing conditions” and provided “C-Class jail facilities”. Today, the IHC registrar initially raised objections to the petition, which were later removed by PTI lawyer Sher Afzal Marwat. During the hearing, IHC CJ Aamer Farooq said that the court would issue an order as per the prison rules. “Keep this in mind that an order will be released for the provision of those facilities that are mentioned in the prison rules.” The judge then asked Marwat to provide the names of two to three lawyers for meeting with Imran, adding that an order would be issued according to that. In an order issued later in the day, the court said PTI lawyers Umair Niazi, Marwat and Panjotha would be allowed to meet Imran. “The jail authorities at Attock Jail shall provide due counsel access to the petitioner for signatures on Wakalatnama and instructions as provided in Jail Manual and other laws,” it added.