Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi on Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking suspension of their sentences in the £190 million case, arguing that the Islamabad High Court wrongly rejected their pleas without properly examining the evidence and despite their medical conditions. 

The appeals, filed through senior lawyer Salman Safdar, seek suspension of the sentences on both medical and legal grounds and request their release on bail pending a final decision and challenge the dismissal of their applications by the Islamabad High Court (IHC). The petition argues that the decision was contrary to the requirements of justice and that, although the IHC found the applications maintainable, they failed to examine the merits of the case properly.

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) disposed of pleas regarding sentence suspension in early May, observing that since the principal appeals had already been fixed for hearing, there was no justification to separately take up the suspension pleas.

In his petition, Imran submits that he developed an eye condition during imprisonment and had to be transferred outside the jail for medical treatment. He argues that continued incarceration despite serious health issues is unjust and says prolonged solitary confinement has caused him exceptional mental distress.

The appeal further alleges that the sentence suspension application was deliberately delayed and notes that Imran was granted bail during the trial after the allegations against him were found to be without basis. It argues that courts are legally empowered to examine the merits of a case when deciding sentence suspension applications and that dismissing the plea without a preliminary assessment of the evidence was erroneous.

The petition also accuses the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) of repeatedly seeking adjournments, delaying proceedings and causing a denial of timely justice. It further alleges that Imran’s arrest was unlawful and politically motivated, adding that a higher court had previously ordered his release over the manner of his arrest.

Imran’s appeal argues that following amendments to the NAB law, final appeals fall within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Bench, but sentence suspension appeals remain within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. It requests the apex court to set aside the High Court’s order, suspend the sentence and order the release of both appellants.

Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Khawaja Salman Rafique versus NAB case, the petition argues that the apex court has previously observed that accountability laws had been used for political engineering. It also states that Imran has been taken from jail to hospital four times for treatment and contends that prisoners suffering from deteriorating eyesight and requiring specialist medical supervision are entitled to bail.

The petition also relies on the Lahore High Court’s ruling in Muhammad Akmal versus The State on medical bail, arguing that Khan cannot receive adequate treatment while in prison.

Read: TTAP says police stopped delegation from travelling to AJK to join sit-in

In her separate appeal, Bushra Bibi states that she underwent eye surgery at Al-Shifa Hospital and that during a meeting with her daughter on April 17, she informed her that she had undergone the procedure and was wearing an eye patch and dark glasses during recovery.

Her petition argues that she has neither been convicted in a terrorism case nor sentenced to life imprisonment, and that her bail application has remained pending before the Islamabad High Court for more than a year due to repeated adjournments sought by NAB rather than any delay on her part.

The appeal alleges that NAB has followed a pattern of prolonging proceedings and, relying on the Khawaja Salman Rafique versus NAB judgment, argues that the legal process has been used as an instrument of coercion rather than justice.

Bushra Bibi further submits that she is entitled to bail in view of her serious medical condition and as a woman. The petition contends that the trial court’s judgment failed to identify any criminal role played by her in the Al-Qadir Trust case, noting that no official witness testified against her and no funds connected to the case were ever transferred into her bank account.

The appeal also states that during proceedings on July 2, 2024, NAB’s prosecutor informed the court that Bushra Bibi’s arrest was not required.

Islamabad High Court

Separately on Monday, the IHC removed the registrar’s office’s objections to petitions filed on behalf of Imran and Bushra Bibi against their alleged solitary confinement and directed that the cases be assigned regular numbers.

Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro heard the petitions filed by Imran’s sister Aleema Khan on behalf of him and by Mubashra Khawar Maneka on behalf of Bushra Bibi. Barrister Salman Safdar and PTI Secretary General Salman Akram Raja appeared before the court.

Aleema had filed a writ petition in the IHC seeking a declaration that the prolonged solitary confinement and incommunicado detention of her brother at Adiala Jail is illegal, unconstitutional, and without lawful authority.

During the hearing, Safdar argued that “The registrar’s office has raised the objection that the petitioners are not the aggrieved parties,” adding that “Aleema is the PTI founder’s sister and Mubashra is Bushra Bibi’s daughter.”

Safdar said the issue of alleged solitary confinement had previously been raised before the chief justice during appeals. “The chief justice told us to approach the relevant forum,” he said.

Referring to previous case law, Safdar cited the Begum Shamim Afridi case and said she had challenged the solitary confinement of her imprisoned husband.

Justice Soomro asked counsel to identify the relevant paragraph in the judgment confirming that the petitioner had been the prisoner’s wife. Safdar then read the relevant portion of the ruling before the court.

The lawyer said he had not been allowed to meet Bushra Bibi since December, while he had met Imran only twice under orders issued by the chief justice of Pakistan and the chief justice of the IHC.

“They do not have a television and are not being provided with newspapers. Solitary confinement is the harshest form of punishment,” Safdar argued.

“There is no mention of solitary confinement anywhere in the judgment against us,” he added, contending that “even extraordinary prisoners can only be kept in solitary confinement for 14 days.”

Read More: Kasim urges UNHRC intervention to end Imran’s persecution, detention immediately

Safdar further alleged that “both husband and wife are being subjected to inhumane treatment” and claimed they had been kept in solitary confinement for the past seven months without being allowed to meet anyone.

He also referred to a previous petition involving Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, saying, “If no family member can approach the court, then who can?”

During the proceedings, Justice Soomro asked for a copy of the order in which the chief justice had allegedly directed the petitioners to approach the relevant forum. “We do not have a copy of the order. We face difficulties even in obtaining certified copies,” Safdar replied.

The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) prosecutor, Rafi Maqsood, disputed the claims, telling the court that after meeting Imran, Safdar had never informed the bench that his client was being held in solitary confinement. “He only told the court that he had been instructed to argue the suspension of sentence applications and not the appeals,” the prosecutor said.

Safdar responded that a miscellaneous application raising the issue had already been filed in the pending appeals. The prosecutor argued that the miscellaneous application had already been dismissed, while Safdar maintained that it had not.

The NAB prosecutor further contended that the matter could now be taken to the Supreme Court and could not be pursued through a constitutional petition under Article 199.

The petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution through a legal team led by Safdar and Advocate Salman Akram Raja, names the superintendent and deputy superintendent of Adiala Jail, the Punjab inspector general of prisons, the NAB chairman, the FIA director general, the medical superintendent of PIMS, and the state as respondents.

The petition contended that no court awarded the 74-year-old former premier solitary confinement in either the Al-Qadir Trust Case or the Toshakhana-II case, yet jail authorities have allegedly kept him in isolation for nearly 22 hours a day over the last six months without any lawful sanction.

Also Read: Imran’s ‘solitary prison’ challenged

Safdar requested the court to summon copies of the miscellaneous application and any related order from the earlier proceedings, maintaining that no order had been passed by the chief justice’s bench on the solitary confinement issue.

After hearing the arguments, the court removed the registrar’s office’s objections, directed that the petitions be assigned regular numbers, and held that the question of maintainability would be decided on the judicial side.

At Safdar’s request, the court adjourned further hearing until Tuesday.

Imran and Bushra Bibi remain incarcerated in Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail. They were sentenced on December 20, 2025, to 17 years in prison in the Toshakhana-II case, which pertains to allegations that the couple unlawfully retained a Bulgari jewellery set gifted by the Saudi crown prince during an official visit to Saudi Arabia.

In January last year, an Islamabad accountability court sentenced Imran to 14 years and Bushra Bibi to seven years in prison in the reference filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The IHC is currently hearing appeals seeking suspension of these sentences.

£190 million case

Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi are facing a £190 million graft case linked to the Al-Qadir Trust, a welfare organisation they established in 2018. The trust, which runs a university outside Islamabad focused on spirituality and Islamic teachings, is accused of being used as a front to receive land worth millions of dollars from a real estate tycoon.

The government claims the donations were in exchange for Imran’s administration using repatriated UK funds to pay fines against the businessman, instead of depositing the money into Pakistan’s treasury.

Imran has denied any wrongdoing, insisting neither he nor his wife gained financially from the trust or related transactions.