IHC snubs plea to cancel Imran's arrest warrants.

LAHORE -- The Islamabad High Court on Wednesday termed the issuance of the arrest warrants for PTI chairman Imran Khan by a sessions court in the Toshakhana (gift depository) case in accordance with the law and rejected a plea moved by the party to cancel them.

The court observed that the petitioner, Imran, and others should follow the order.

Before the IHC verdict, the Zaman Park residence of the deposed prime minister turned into a battleground between police personnel, who wanted to arrest Imran as per the trial court's order and tenacious party activists, who wanted to prevent that at any cost.

This situation compelled the Lahore High Court to intervene and order the police to put off their operation till 10am on Thursday until the IHC verdict was announced.

At the IHC, its Chief Justice Aamer Farooq announced the judgment after reserving it earlier in the day.

In the verdict, he directed Imran to submit his undertaking to the sessions court.

In that undertaking, Imran had pledged to appear before the trial court on March 18.

Upholding the sessions court order in the case, the IHC noted that it should decide on Imran's undertaking in accordance with the law.

Read Imran asks supporters to 'carry on struggle' even if killed or arrested

On Monday, a district and sessions court in Islamabad issued non-bailable arrest warrants for Imran after his continuous absences in the Toshakhana case.

Additional District and Sessions Judge Zafar Iqbal also directed the police to arrest the deposed premier and present him before the court on March 18.

The IHC verdict read that as the non-bailable warrants of arrest had been issued by the trial court for the purposes of procuring the attendance of the petitioner, Imran had undertaken to appear before it.

'The competent court is the learned trial court, it is to satisfy itself regarding the undertaking and pass [an] appropriate order as to the status of the warrants,' it added.

The IHC noted that the law and order situation in Lahore was a 'sad state of affairs' where the State was being prevented from carrying out its obligation for complying with the orders of the court.

'Such defiance of the law is not acceptable in any civilised society and the law needs to be adhered to by the citizens/people of any country in general and persons in the helm of the affairs particularly. The phrase 'rule of law' is not a rhetoric and has different connotations, including obedience to law and any defiance thereof...