ATC Judge Warns of Jailing DSP, SP After IO Goes Missing in Imaan and Hadi’s Bail Hearing
An anti-terrorism court in Islamabad on Monday expressed strong displeasure over the absence of the investigating officer and the police’s failure to produce the case record during the Imaan Mazari bail hearing for the lawyer couple’s petitions in a protest-related case.
ATC Judge Abul Hasnat Muhammad Zulqarnain summoned the deputy superintendent of police and the Judicial Complex’s security head after being informed that the investigating officer was out of town.
At the outset of the hearing, the judge repeatedly questioned DSP Legal Naeem Yousuf about the whereabouts of the investigating officer and the case record, directing him to provide documentary evidence instead of making verbal assertions.
The DSP initially told the court that, to the best of his knowledge, the officer was out of town. The judge said he did not appreciate mere verbal statements and directed the police officer to produce evidence of the officer’s whereabouts.
What happened in the Imaan Mazari bail hearing
The DSP later told the court that the investigating officer was in Gilgit-Baltistan and produced a printout of a WhatsApp message in support of his claim. The judge refused to accept the printout and ordered the police official to produce the original document. DSP Yousuf then said the officer’s mobile phone was switched off and that it could take 10 to 15 days to establish contact with him.
The judge warned that if the required record was not produced, he could send both the DSP and the superintendent of police to jail for six months.
“You ought to be ashamed; you people have turned this into a display of high-handedness,” the judge remarked.
At one point, the court ordered handcuffs to be brought into the courtroom and summoned the security head, directing him not to allow the DSP to leave the court premises without permission. The judge also criticised the absence of an effective judicial enforcement mechanism, observing that the same old system dating back to 1898 and 1860 was still in place.
Defence arguments at the Imaan Mazari bail hearing
Defence counsel Riasat Ali Azad argued that, except for the terrorism provision, all other sections in the first information report were bailable, and that there was no justification for delaying the bail proceedings merely because the investigating officer was unavailable. “If the court requires detailed arguments, I am ready to present them,” Azad said, alleging the authorities had made a mockery of the judicial process. Advocate Zafar Khokhar objected to the officer taking the record away with him, while the prosecution maintained the record was unavailable because of the officer’s absence.
The judge said he was dictating a detailed order regarding the officer’s unavailability, and adjourned the hearing until October 13.
Background: the couple’s rearrest
The lawyer couple has been in jail since their arrest on January 23 in a case about a protest outside the Islamabad High Court. A day later, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act in a social media posts case, convictions widely condemned by lawyers and UN experts.
On September 17, the Supreme Court suspended their sentences and ordered their release pending the Islamabad High Court’s final verdict on their appeals. Hours later, Islamabad police arrested the couple again in a separate case registered at the capital’s Kohsar police station on March 22 last year, on the complaint of City Magistrate Ghulam Murtaza Chandio. They were accused of chanting anti-government slogans and blocking roads; no Anti-Terrorism Act section had been added when the case was registered.
Related: UN experts demand immediate release of Imaan Mazari and Hadi Chattha | ATC orders Imran Khan’s production in Judicial Complex attack case | Naqvi says talks with opposition have collapsed | PSX tumbles nearly 2,000 points amid political tensions
Frequently asked questions
What happened at the Imaan Mazari bail hearing on Monday?
The ATC judge expressed strong displeasure after the investigating officer failed to appear with the case record. The judge summoned the DSP and the Judicial Complex’s security head, ordered handcuffs brought to the courtroom, and warned that the DSP and SP could face six months in jail if the record was not produced.
Why was the judge angry with the police?
DSP Legal Naeem Yousuf first said the investigating officer was out of town, then claimed he was in Gilgit-Baltistan and produced only a WhatsApp printout as proof. The judge refused to accept verbal claims and the printout, and criticised what he called a “display of high-handedness”.
When is the next hearing in the case?
The court adjourned the bail hearing until October 13, with the judge dictating a detailed order on the investigating officer’s unavailability.
Why are Imaan Mazari and Hadi Chattha in jail?
The couple was rearrested hours after the Supreme Court suspended their 17-year sentences on September 17 in a social media posts case. They were then picked up in a separate protest-related case registered at Islamabad’s Kohsar police station, in which their bail petitions are now being heard.
