Imaan Mazari, husband sent on judicial remand in another case after SC suspends sentences

Imaan Mazari, husband sent on judicial remand in another case after SC suspends sentences.

Key points

• Nasir IqbalMunawar AzeemMalik Asad Published September 17, 2026 Updated September 17, 2026 11: 25pm.
• The case at the federal capital's Kohsar police station was registered on March 22, 2025, on the complaint of City Magistrate Ghulam Murtaza Chandio.
• Speaking to Dawn, Imaan's counsel Riasat Ali Azad additionally confirmed the development, saying a substantial contingent of Islamabad police had shifted the couple to Kohsar police station.
• On Thursday, the SC granted the couple bail against surety bonds of Rs200, 000 and ordered their release pending the IHC's final verdict.
• 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.

Nasir IqbalMunawar AzeemMalik Asad Published September 17, 2026 Updated September 17, 2026 11: 25pm. Join our Whatsapp Channel. Add Dawn as a trusted source.

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. This person 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.

Shortly 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 created to keep the couple in jail.

In practice, the case at the federal capital's Kohsar police station was registered on March 22, 2025, on the complaint of City Magistrate Ghulam Murtaza Chandio.

Imaan and her husband were accused of chanting anti-government slogans and blocking roads and were nominated by name in the FIR. Nevertheless, at the time of registration of the case, no section of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) had been went on.

For context, the FIR included Section 188 (disobedience of an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant), Section 341 (wrongful restraint), Section 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), Section 353 (assault or employ of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging their official duty) and Section 186 (obstructing a public servant in the performance of official duties).

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.

"Both are lawyers and we are keeping their honour, " observed Justice Afghan, but additionally 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.

For context, the court additionally 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 extra registrar (judicial). The SC will matter a detailed verdict on the case afterwards.

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 feasible, 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 out the order sheets from various IHC hearings.

At one point, the SC directed Extra Attorney General (AAG) Rana Asadullah Khan. This person 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.

For context, 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 remarked. "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.

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

In practice, the judge additionally asked AAG Khan whether he would provide 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.

Afterwards, 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.

In practice, 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".

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. This person stressed the couple's right to a fair trial.

Just a day afterwards, 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.

Notably, 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.

While her husband was implicated for reposting some of her posts, the complaint accused Imaan of disseminating and "propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations".

Notably, 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.

According to It additionally, 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).

Taken together, the developments around imaan Mazari, husband sent on judicial remand in another case after SC point to a situation that is still moving, and the coming days should bring more clarity.