ISLAMABAD: An anti-terrorism court (ATC) on Monday expressed strong displeasure over the absence of the investigating officer (IO) and the police’s failure to produce the case record during the hearing of bail petitions filed by lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha in a protest-related case.
ATC Judge Abul Hasnat Muhammad Zulqarnain summoned the deputy superintendent of police (DSP) and the Judicial Complex’s security head after being informed that the IO was out of town.
At the outset of the hearing, the judge repeatedly questioned DSP Legal Naeem Yousuf about the whereabouts of the IO and the case record, directing him to provide documentary evidence instead of making verbal assertions.
The DSP initially informed the court that, to the best of his knowledge, the IO was out of town. The judge expressed displeasure, saying he did not appreciate mere verbal statements.
The court subsequently directed the police officer to produce evidence regarding the IO’s whereabouts.
The DSP later told the court that the IO was in Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) 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 IO’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 (SP) to jail for six months.
“You ought to be ashamed; you people have turned this into a display of high-handedness,” the judge remarked, questioning the manner in which the investigation was being handled.
At one point, the court ordered handcuffs to be brought into the courtroom and summoned the security head.
The judge also directed the security official not to allow the DSP to leave the court premises without permission and indicated that he could be arrested if he failed to provide accurate information.
The judge 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.
During the hearing, defence counsel Riasat Ali Azad argued that, except for the terrorism provision, all other sections incorporated in the first information report (FIR) were bailable.
He said the court had already rejected the request for Imaan and Hadi’s physical remand and that there was no justification for delaying the bail proceedings merely because the IO was unavailable.
“If the court requires detailed arguments, I am ready to present them,” Azad said.
He alleged that the authorities had made a mockery of the judicial process by failing to produce the investigation record.
Advocate Zafar Khokhar also objected to the IO taking the record away with him.
The prosecution side maintained that the investigation record was not available because of the IO’s absence.
The judge said he was dictating a detailed order regarding the IO’s unavailability. Subsequently, the hearing was adjourned until Oct 13.
Imaan and Hadi’s rearrest
The lawyer couple has been in jail since their arrest on Jan 23 in a case registered against them for protesting outside the Islamabad High Court (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 sentenced them to 17 years on multiple charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) in a case pertaining to controversial social media posts.
The convictions were widely condemned by lawyers and United Nations (UN) experts.
On Sept 17, following months of litigation before the courts, the Supreme Court suspended their sentences in the case. The SC ordered their release pending the Islamabad High Court’s final verdict on their appeals against the trial court’s decision.
However, the reprieve was short-lived as hours later, Islamabad police arrested the couple again in connection with another case and produced them before an ATC, which sent them to jail on judicial remand.
The fresh case in which the two were arrested was registered at the federal capital’s Kohsar police station on March 22 last year 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. However, at the time of registration of the case, no section of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) had been added.
The FIR included sections 188 (disobedience of an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), 353 (assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging their official duty) and 186 (obstructing a public servant in the performance of official duties).
The post Imaan and Hadi's arrest: ATC judge irked over IO's absence, police failure to present case record appeared first on Dawn – Home.
