Mazari and Chattha have challenged the January 24 conviction before the high court
Lawyer and human rights activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, defender Hadi Ali Chattha. PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court on Saturday issued a written order in the controversial tweets case, giving notices on the appeals filed against the convictions of human rights activist and lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, lawyer Hadi Ali Chattha.
The court also issued notices regarding applications for suspension of their sentences.
Justice Muhammad Asif issued a two-page written order after the hearing.
According to the order, Mazari and Chattha challenged the January 24 conviction verdict before the high court. The petitioners’ attorneys argued that the decision was not legally sound and should be declared void.
Read: Imaan Mazari, husband imprisoned in the PECA case
On January 24, a trial court in Islamabad handed down a combined 17-year prison sentence to both Mazari and Chattha, convicting them of multiple charges linked to controversial social media posts that prosecutors said amounted to an anti-state narrative under cybercrime laws.
During today’s hearing, the court ordered the registrar’s office to prepare paper books of the case. It was ordered that the matter be fixed for hearing after the paper books are collected.
The court did not specify a date for the early hearing of the requests for suspension of sentence. The petitioners’ lawyers had requested that the requests for suspension of sentence and release on bail be set for early hearing.
Earlier, an Islamabad anti-terrorism court granted bail to both in a police encounter case.
Judge Abul Hasnat Muhammad Zulqarnain ruled in favor of the accused and granted post-arrest bail with sureties of Rs 10,000 each.
Read more: ATC grants bail to Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha in police fight case
The case, registered at the Secretariat Police Station, involves accusations of police altercation and public protest.
Representing the accused, state advocate Ali Azad submitted that the charges were baseless and the FIR was lodged based on fabricated and non-existent facts.
After hearing the arguments of both parties, the court ruled in favor of the accused.
