The Supreme Court has officially accepted the plea submitted by the PTI chairman for a judicial probe into the events of May 9 for a comprehensive hearing.

The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court annulled the registrar’s office’s objections to the petition and instructed the office to allocate a case number and arrange the hearing.

The PTI chairman was represented by prominent attorney Hamid Khan, who appeared in court to argue for the petition’s admission.

The Lahore Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) already convicted Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan in connection with the incidents on May 9 and denied his bail on eight distinct counts.

The court’s finding was delivered in a six-page written order by ATC Judge Manzar Ali Gul.

The written ruling emphasized substantial evidence against the PTI founder, comprising audio and visual recordings of his directives to incite violence.

The court observed that witnesses had provided testimony on the conspiracy planned by Imran Khan at Zaman Park, where he purportedly strategized for his possible arrest by intending to disrupt state functions via his supporters.

Imran Khan’s legal counsel contended that he was in custody at the time of the incidents, proposing that bail be granted in accordance with precedents where bail was awarded in like circumstances following detention.

Nevertheless, the court rejected this argument, underscoring that the case’s nature was not a trifling issue of conspiracy or incitement.

The prosecution established that Mr. Khan had explicitly incited assaults on military and governmental facilities and had galvanized both his commanders and supporters to adhere to his directives.

The decision additionally cited the Lahore High Court’s finding regarding a prior release granted to Ijaz Chaudhry, highlighting Imran Khan’s involvement in the conspiracy. The court dismissed the defense’s challenge over the prosecution’s lack of specificity concerning the date, time, or location of the purported conspiracy, affirming that the scheme was allegedly devised on May 7 and May 9 at Zaman Park.

The prosecution asserts that undercover police officers, masquerading as PTI supporters, intercepted discussions outlining the scheme.

This increase, according to details, followed the submission of a report to the Islamabad High Court in response to a petition brought by Norin, the sister of the PTI founder.

Punjab has the most cases against Imran Khan (99), according to the Ministry of Interior’s report that breaks down the cases by area.

There are 76 cases in Islamabad, according to the Islamabad Police data, compared to two in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

In addition, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) is investigating three instances, while the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) is still investigating seven cases.

Cases against Imran Khan also concern the protests in October, November, and December. In addition, there is an ongoing appeal in the Toshakhana criminal case against his sentencing.

Yesterday, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder along with 60 other PTI leaders were indicted in the GHQ attack case.

Imran Khan and sixty other party leaders were charged in the GHQ attack case by Judge Amjad Ali Shah of the anti-terrorism court.

Imran Khan, who is presently detained at Adiala Jail, was released on bail in the Toshakhana case but was arrested again by the police in the New Town PS case.

76 complaints have been filed against the founder of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in the federal capital, according to a report provided to the court by the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) police.

The article claims that after the D-Chowk demonstration, 14 more complaints were filed against him, increasing the total number of cases that had been brought against him before.

A plea submitted by his sister, Noreen Niazi, asking for information on cases filed against the PTI founder was dismissed by the Islamabad High Court.

In court, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) provided case data, while the Interior Secretary provided reports on cases from Sindh, Balochistan, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Once all pertinent information was submitted, the court adjourned and dismissed Noreen Niazi’s