ISLAMABAD: An Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) on Thursday said that it would hear a case registered against Human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari, her husband, advocate Hadi Ali Chattha at Adiala Jail after the district administration issued a notification regarding the matter.
ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra, while hearing the case against the couple, issued directives to defence lawyers and prosecution witnesses to appear before it in jail. The court adjourned the hearing of the case till today (Friday).
According to a notification issued by Chief Commissioner, Islamabad in exercise of the powers vested by virtue of section9(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1898, read with justice division’s notification, issued in pursuance of article 2 of Islamabad Capital Territory (Administration) Order, 1980 (P.O: No: 18 of 1980) and all other enabling provisions and in pursuance of the request of District Magistrate, Islamabad letter no.1577/6(1)-RDM/2026 October 15, and Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP)headquarters, letter October 14, the Chief Commissioner, hereby accord permission to ATC Court-II, Islamabad, to conduct jail trial of the couple.
During the hearing, defence counsel Eemal Khan Mandokhail and Riasat Ali appeared before the court.
During the hearing, the judge asked Superintendent of Police (SP) Pari Gul Tareen why the accused had not been produced before the court despite repeated summons. “They sometimes say the relevant vehicle was not available and the other time they make other excuses,” the judge said.
The SP told the court that “currently our major portion of force has been deployed in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and high-level delegations also present in Islamabad. It would be better to hold jail trial of both the accused.”
She further told the court that SSP has written formal letter for jail trial and an official notification regarding arrangement would be issued.
Defence counsel Riasat Ali Azad told the court that police are producing accused before the court on daily basis. Imaan and Chattha were not terrorists and even they could come in a horse cart, he said.
Representing the accused, Advocate Riasat Ali Azad stated that the police produced the accused before the court on a daily basis. He argued that Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha were not terrorists and could easily be brought to court, even in a horse cart.
Dr Shireen Mazari, mother of Imaan, said the court should ask from police how the accused being brought to court at 12 at night.
During the hearing Imaan and Chattha were produced before the court via a video link. The judge briefed the accused about the court proceedings. Chattha told the court that they had no objection over both either physical attendance or over jail trial. Lawyers and media persons would also be present during the hearing inside the jail, Chattha said.
During the hearing, Imaan’s lawyer Mandokhail submitted an affidavit before the court. The affidavit submitted before the court says that a certified copy of the court order was presented to the deputy superintendent at Adiala Jail. He said that he had requested the jail authorities for confidential meeting in accordance with the Pakistan Prison Rules and as per the order of the court.
He said he was allowed to meet with his clients after waiting for an hour. The meeting was held in the jail conference room where everything was recorded and there was no privacy, he said, adding that he had taken the documents related to the case to discuss it with his clients. He was not allowed to take the documents with him inside the jail or give it to his clients.
The affidavit further alleged that two female constables remained with Mazari throughout the meeting, the door was kept open, and male constables stood outside. He claimed that jail officials could hear their entire conversation, describing the arrangement as a violation of the court’s order.
According to the affidavit, the accused reiterated during the brief meeting that they were not boycotting the trial and wished to appear before the court in person.
During the hearing, the judge asked the jail authorities, “Why both accused were not produced before the court. Has the court received any report of jail authorities, asked the judge?”
The judge remarked that the jail authorities had written a letter for a vehicle to bring the accused from jail to court. He also said that the city police had stated that they did not have an available vehicle or three constables for producing the accused before it.
The court summoned SP headquarters and took a short break.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026