ISLAMABAD: Hours after the Supreme Court suspended the sentences of human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, an anti-terrorism court (ATC) rejected police’s request for a 30-day physical remand of the couple and sent them to jail on judicial remand.

On January 24, an Islamabad sessions court sentenced Imaan and Hadi to a total of 17 years in jail on multiple charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca). The convictions of the couple, who had already been jailed the day before in a separate case, were widely condemned by lawyers and United Nations (UN) experts.

Islamabad ATC Judge Abul Hasnat Muhammad Zulqarnain passed the order after the two accused were produced before the court for a hearing in a case registered against them at Kohsar police station.

Soon after their release, Islamabad police personnel, led by the SSP Operations, reached Adiala jail and arrested the two again in connection with the case registered at Kohsar police station. The police subsequently produced them before the ATC late at night.

Former federal minister Shireen Mazari confirmed the development, saying attempts were being made to keep the couple in jail.

Speaking to Dawn, Imaan’s counsel Riasat Ali Azad also confirmed the development, saying a large contingent of Islamabad police had shifted the couple to Kohsar police station.

SC suspends sentences

Earlier today, the apex court suspended their sentences after a two-judge SC bench, headed by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, took up the couple’s appeals against the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) refusal in February to suspend the sentences.

On Thursday, the SC granted the couple bail against surety bonds of Rs200,000 and ordered their release pending the IHC’s final verdict.

“Both are lawyers and we are keeping their honour,” observed Justice Afghan, but also asked senior counsel Faisal Siddiqui, the couple’s lawyer, to tell the appellants to observe the court’s decorum.

“There is a difference between a lawyer and an ordinary person,” the judge observed.

According to a written order, the SC converted the petitions of both Imaan and Hadi into appeals and suspended the operation of the January 24 conviction.

The court also ordered the release of petitioners — noting they were practising advocates — on bail till the decision of their pending appeals before IHC. The release was subject to furnishing personal surety bonds worth Rs200,000 for each with the SC’s additional registrar (judicial).

The SC will issue a detailed verdict on the case later.

Earlier, the SC had repeatedly adjourned hearings in the case on the grounds that the IHC had fixed their application for suspension of sentence along with the main appeal.

During Thursday’s hearing, Siddiqui argued that the SC had issued its first order on May 12 in which the IHC was asked to decide the applicants’ petition for suspension of sentence as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks.

On May 12, the SC ordered the IHC to decide Imaan and Hadi’s sentence suspension pleas within two weeks. Despite the May 26 deadline having already passed, the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) challenged the SC order and sought its withdrawal.

During the proceedings, Siddiqui also read out the order sheets from various IHC hearings.

At one point, the SC directed Additional Attorney General (AAG) Rana Asadullah Khan, who was standing at the rostrum, to take a seat, adding that the court will hear Siddiqui first.

“Let him sit, though he has certainly worn us out,” Siddiqui quipped and cited former chief justice Asif Saeed Khosa’s remarks that a case would only be adjourned upon the death of a judge or a lawyer.

The counsel regretted that the IHC adjourned the case multiple times and that his clients’ request for an early hearing was rejected by the high court’s registrar office.

“What transpired at the high court came as a surprise to us,” the counsel said.

“These days are an era of surprises,” remarked Justice Ibrahim.

During the hearing, the AAG contended that the IHC has not yet issued any adverse ruling, adding that seven opportunities were provided in the trial court.

He highlighted that the judicial forum for the suspension of a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was the high court.

Justice Afghan observed that the IHC always cited the SC directives for early disposal of the case but does not act upon them.

The judge also asked AAG Khan whether he would give any assurance that proceedings would be held at the next IHC hearing, to which the latter replied that he cannot represent any high court judge in the SC.

Later, the SC suspended the sentence of the applicants and ordered their release on bail, pending the IHC’s final verdict.

In their applications, the applicants had stated that it was a settled policy of the SC that criminal matters have to be given priority, especially when the matters pertain to bail or suspension of sentence.

Moreover, in Section 7 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, it was expressly stated that any application pleading urgency shall be fixed for hearing within a period of 14 days.

The application contended that Imaan was a young female lawyer and has remained incarcerated for a long period of time in a case where conviction was the “result of a sham trial”.

The case

Imaan and Hadi have been in jail since their arrest on January 23 in a case registered against them for protesting outside the IHC and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association (IHCBA) president. The arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial.

Just a day later, a sessions court convicted Imaan and Hadi in the social media posts case.

It sentenced the duo to 10 years’ imprisonment under Section 10 (cyber terrorism), five years’ imprisonment under Section 9 (glorification of an offence) and two years’ imprisonment under Section 26-A (false and fake information) of Peca.

All sentences were to run concurrently.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed on Aug 12, 2025 by the assistant director (investigating officer) at the NCCIA Islamabad, before the Federal Investigation Agency’s Cybercrime Reporting Centre.

The complaint accused Imaan of disseminating and “propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations”, while her husband was implicated for reposting some of her posts.

The first information report (FIR) in the case alleged that the two held security forces responsible for cases of missing persons in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan.

It also stated that they had portrayed the armed forces as ineffective against proscribed groups, including the banned outfits Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) and the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

Judge Majoka had indicted Imaan and Hadi in the case on Oct 30, 2025 and issued arrest warrants for the couple on Nov 5, 2025. The judge then reissued arrest warrants for them in January after repeated non-appearances.

After being convicted, the couple challenged the sentences by filing separate appeals in the IHC on February 7. Taking up those appeals and sentence suspension pleas on February 19, the IHC issued notices to the respondents but refused to suspend the sentences.

On April 30, Imaan and Hadi moved a separate appeal before the SC against the IHC’s February order. They sought an early hearing of the plea in June, after which notices were issued on July 6.

After the SC’s intervention, the IHC finally declared the jailed couple’s pleas seeking suspension of sentences as admissible on July 25. Days later, Imaan moved the SC again seeking an early hearing of the challenge against the IHC order.