ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court on Thursday granted bail to lawyer and rights activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, advocate Hadi Ali Chattha, pending a final decision by the Islamabad High Court on their applications seeking suspension of their sentences.
A SC two-member bench headed by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan heard the matter. The top court said the relief would remain subject to the proceedings before the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
Additional Attorney General Rana Asad opposed the bail applications, arguing that the IHC had yet to decide the matter. He maintained that the High Court was the appropriate forum to consider applications for suspension of sentences under Section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The defence, however, drew the Supreme Court’s attention to repeated delays in proceedings before the IHC.
Advocate Faisal Siddiqui told the bench that the Supreme Court had previously directed the IHC to decide the applications within two weeks. He referred to several subsequent hearings that were adjourned without a final decision.
Justice Afghan questioned the continued delays and observed that repeated adjournments were affecting the Supreme Court proceedings as well.
Siddiqui said the couple’s request for an early hearing had also been turned down by the IHC registrar’s office. He recalled that the Supreme Court had issued its first order in the matter on May 12.
During the hearing, Justice Afghan said both accused were lawyers and stressed the importance of maintaining the dignity and decorum of the court.
The IHC had scheduled the suspension-of-sentence applications for September 8, but the hearing was adjourned without substantive proceedings. The Supreme Court had previously expressed concern over the delay and directed the High Court to proceed with the matter.
Case background
Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha were arrested on January 23 while travelling towards the district courts. They were subsequently tried in connection with social media posts that prosecutors alleged violated provisions of cybercrime laws.
A trial court later sentenced each of them to a combined 17 years in prison on multiple charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA). The sentences included five years under Section 9, 10 years under Section 10 and two years under Section 26-A, along with financial penalties.
The court, however, acquitted them of a charge under Section 11 of PECA relating to hate speech, citing a lack of supporting evidence from prosecution witnesses.
The couple subsequently challenged the convictions and sought suspension of their sentences before the IHC.
Imaan later approached the Supreme Court after her application remained pending before the High Court. Her petition challenged the trial court proceedings and alleged violations of constitutional guarantees relating to due process and a fair trial.
The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency subsequently challenged the Supreme Court’s earlier directions requiring the IHC to decide the suspension applications within a specified period.
The IHC later reserved its ruling on the maintainability of the applications, saying it would first determine the prosecution’s objections before proceeding with the requests for suspension of sentence.
The Supreme Court’s latest order grants bail to Imaan and Chattha while the matter remains pending before the IHC.
