SC grants bail to Imaan Mazari, Hadi Ali Chattha pending IHC decision

In January, both were handed combined 17-year sentence on multiple charges linked to controversial social media posts Human Rights lawyer and social activist Imaan Mazari and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha. Photo File The Supreme Court on Thursday granted bail to Imaan Mazari and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha, saying the relief was being granted pending the final decision in the case before the Islamabad High Court (IHC). Imaan, a rights activist and lawyer, and Chattha, an advocate, were in January 2026 handed a combined 17-year sentence on multiple charges linked to controversial social media posts that the prosecution argued amounted to an anti-state narrative under cybercrime laws. Imaan and Chattha had filed applications for suspension of their sentences in January. In today's hearing, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan said, 'Both are lawyers; we are respecting their dignity. Tell them too to observe the decorum of the court,' he said, adding that there was a difference between a lawyer and an ordinary person. The IHC had fixed September 8 for hearing Imaan and Chattha's applications seeking suspension of their sentences. However, the hearing was adjourned without any proceedings. The development came after the SC had earlier directed the IHC to decide the applications within two weeks. During a previous hearing, a two-member Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan had questioned the delay in the matter and remarked that the 'system should be fully exposed'. Case background The couple was arrested on January 23 near the underpass outside the Serena Hotel while travelling to the district courts, and later sent to 14 days' judicial remand by an anti-terrorism court. A district and sessions court later sentenced both to a combined 17 years' rigorous imprisonment each: five years under PECA Section 9 (plus a Rs5 million fine), 10 years under Section 10 (plus Rs30 million), and two years under Section 26-A (plus Rs1 million), with additional jail time in case of non-payment of fines. The judge also acquitted them of the PECA hate-speech charge under Section 11, saying prosecution witnesses did not support that allegation. During proceedings conducted via video link, Imaan alleged mistreatment in custody and announced a boycott of the hearing. The judgment noted the pair were already in custody in another case and said they would remain in jail to serve their sentences, with credit for time spent in detention under Section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code. In March, Imaan approached the Supreme Court seeking suspension of her sentence, moving the apex court after the IHC did not list her application for hearing. Filed through Siddiqi, the petition stated that despite her counsel's request to suspend the trial court's judgment, the IHC only issued notices on the suspension application on February 19, and that it did not suspend the petitioner's sentence. Further, the petition argued that the trial court's order was completely illegal and clearly mala fide, as it violated due process requirements under Articles 10 and 10A of the Constitution, breaching mandatory provisions of Sections 233, 234, 353, 367, and 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. In June, the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) challenged the SC's earlier order directing the IHC to decide the couple's suspension applications within a specified timeframe. In its petition, the NCCIA contended that the SC cannot interfere in matters that are already pending before a High Court. The application stated that in its May 12 order, the apex court had issued certain directions to the high court, whereas the authority to decide an application for suspension of sentence rested with the concerned high court, which was required to hear all parties and decide the matter in accordance with law. On July 17, the IHC fixed July 24 as the date for hearing applications seeking the suspension of sentences. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also scheduled the hearing on sentence suspension applications for July 21, ahead of the IHC proceedings. On July 21, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing after hearing arguments over whether parallel proceedings before the IHC should continue. Siddiqi argued that the matter had been listed before the high court because proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court. Justice Mazhar rejected the suggestion that the Supreme Court should delay its proceedings because of the high court case, observing, "We cannot sit in the Supreme Court and regulate proceedings before the High Court." On July 24, the IHC reserved its decision on the maintainability of applications seeking the suspension of sentences. The court observed that it would first decide the prosecution's objection regarding the maintainability of the applications before proceeding further.