Mazari, Chattha approach IHC against sentences in security breach case

ISLAMABAD: Lawyer and human rights activist Imaan Mazari and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha approached the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against their convictions in the security breach case.

The couple on Friday filed separate applications seeking the suspension of their sentences awarded by an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in Rawalpindi.

Advocates Faisal Siddiqui, Riasat Ali Azad and Zainab Janjua filed the appeals on behalf of Mazari and Chattha, arguing that the trial court had failed to fulfill the requirements of a fair trial.

The appeals cited various judicial precedents concerning the lack of a fair trial and adopted the stance that the trial, conducted in violation of Article 10, was carried out like a secret trial.

In the identical appeals, it was contended that the trial court failed to meet the requirements of a fair trial and that the conviction was the result of patently illegal and arbitrary proceedings. The lawyer argued that the charge was framed without providing copies under Section 265-C CrPC and that a plea of “not guilty” was recorded on the appellants’ behalf although none was taken.

He further submitted that the prosecution evidence was recorded in the absence of the appellants and their counsel, contrary to Section 353 CrPC and Article 10-A of the Constitution.

The appeal also challenged the jail trial, arguing that it was conducted in a manner akin to a secret trial and without lawful authority, and that the appellants were not allowed a proper and confidential consultation with their counsel.

It further contended that state counsel was imposed on the appellants against their stated wishes and that the trial court proceeded with the case despite a transfer application pending before the High Court, in violation of Section 526 (8) of the CrPC.

On the merits, the appeal argued that the conviction under Section 7 of the ATA was unsustainable because the prosecution failed to prove the design or purpose required under Section 6 of the ATA.

It said the trial court itself described the incident as “a very common nature, ordinary type of incident” and that the evidence showed the appellants were on their way to court when they were held up at the barrier.

The petitioners prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and that they be acquitted.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026