ISLAMABAD: An additional district and sessions judge (ADSJ) on Friday granted bail to 15 PTI workers who were arrested in connection with the November 26, 2024 protest of the party.

ADSJ Amir Zia approved the bail for the workers on a surety bond of Rs20,000 each, directing their lawyer to submit an affidavit on their behalf. They were also required to declare that they would not participate in any such activities in the future.

During the hearing, the defence lawyers argued that their clients were not named in the original case. They contended that while an identity parade was conducted, it did not meet legal requirements. The lawyers also questioned the validity of the case, asserting that the plaintiff was not authorised to file the charges.

The special prosecutor opposed the bail, stating that the accused were identified in the identity parade and had violated Article 144, which prohibits public gatherings along with a decision by the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

The court noted that the IHC had previously granted bail to other individuals involved in the same case. Given that the accused had a similar role in the incident, the judge ruled that they should also be granted bail under the principle of parity.

Meanwhile, leader of the opposition in National Assembly Omar Ayub filed a petition in IHC, seeking contempt of court proceedings against the superintendent of Adiala jail and other authorities for denying the party leaders permission to meet former prime minister Imran Khan.

The petition filed through Advocate Shoaib Shaheen named the interior secretary, the home secretary Punjab and the superintendent the jail as respondents. It argued that as the opposition leader and a representative of a major political party, Mr Ayub and others should be allowed to consult the PTI founder on legal and party affairs.

The petition cited a November 22, 2024 court ruling which ordered the formulation of SOPs for arranging meetings with the PTI founder. The petition claimed that authorities had failed to implement the court’s decision.

It requested contempt of court proceedings against those responsible.