Supreme Court Grants Bail to Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha Pending IHC Decision

• The Supreme Court granted the couple bail against surety bonds of Rs200,000 each.
• The relief will remain in place until the Islamabad High Court decides their sentence-suspension applications.
• The bench questioned repeated adjournments despite an earlier direction to decide the applications within two weeks.

The Supreme Court on Thursday granted bail to lawyer and rights activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, advocate Hadi Ali Chattha, until the Islamabad High Court delivers a final decision on their applications seeking suspension of sentence.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim suspended the trial court’s decision and approved bail against surety bonds of Rs200,000 each.

The couple received sentences totalling 17 years in January 2026 in cases concerning social media posts that prosecutors alleged promoted an anti-state narrative under cybercrime laws. They subsequently moved the Islamabad High Court for suspension of their sentences.

Repeated delays in those proceedings came under scrutiny during Thursday’s hearing. Defence counsel Faisal Siddiqui told the bench that the Supreme Court had first directed the High Court on May 12 to decide the applications within two weeks. He read out order sheets from several subsequent High Court hearings to explain how the matter had progressed.

Justice Afghan questioned why the applications remained undecided. He observed that the High Court sometimes cited Supreme Court orders before adjourning proceedings, while further hearing dates were fixed when the matter returned to the apex court.

The judge remarked that the High Court was, “in its own way”, preventing the Supreme Court from functioning, and asked what action had followed its initial order.

Additional Attorney General Rana Asad opposed the bail requests, arguing that the Islamabad High Court had not yet issued a decision against the prosecution. He maintained that the High Court was the appropriate forum to consider suspension of sentence under Section 426 and said the trial court had already provided seven opportunities.

The bench later directed the additional attorney general to take his seat, saying it would first hear Siddiqui’s arguments.

Siddiqui criticised the repeated adjournments and cited a remark attributed to former chief justice Asif Saeed Khosa that cases should be postponed only in exceptional circumstances. He also said the High Court registrar’s office had rejected the defence’s request for an early hearing.

The defence counsel said developments at the High Court had surprised his clients’ legal team. Justice Afghan responded: “These are the days of surprises.”

The Islamabad High Court had listed the couple’s sentence-suspension applications for September 8, but the proceedings were adjourned without a substantive hearing.

At an earlier Supreme Court hearing, the bench headed by Justice Afghan had also questioned the delay in complying with its two-week deadline, remarking that the “system should be fully exposed”.