Imaan, Hadi move SC against IHC order refusing to stay trial in security breach case

Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, have turned to the Supreme Court to contest the Islamabad High Court's (IHC) decision on October 19 not to stay the trial in their security breach case. The case revolves around the alleged disruption of an international cricket team's security route and inciting public unrest. The couple was charged on October 7 for removing barriers from the route.

On October 19, the IHC heard appeals filed by Imaan and Hadi against the October 10 ATC order that dismissed their petitions challenging the charges and terrorism-related provisions. The IHC had then issued notices, awaiting the parties' responses before deciding on the next steps. The couple, through their legal counsel, Faisal Siddiqui, filed separate petitions with the Supreme Court on Monday, challenging the IHC's October 19 order.

The defense argued that the trial court had moved too quickly, conducting the examination-in-chief of six prosecution witnesses on October 10 and 14, and transferring the trial to a jail setting. The petitioners contended that the trial court's decision to move the trial to jail was unprecedented and lacked proper justification. They also argued that the trial court had appointed state counsel, which they deemed inappropriate.

The petitions claimed that the ongoing trial was a setup orchestrated to undermine the Supreme Court's order suspending the petitioners' 17-year sentences in a separate case related to social media posts. This case resurfaced to prevent their release, allegedly motivated by frivolous and malicious reasons. Imaan's petition argued that the IHC had erroneously declined to grant ad interim relief to stay the criminal trial, despite clear legal reasons and repeated requests.

They emphasized that recording evidence in the absence of the accused violated Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), as well as their right to a fair trial under the law. The petitioners argued that delaying the trial would not harm the prosecution and that they faced irreparable loss due to the gross violations of due process and fair trial principles in the proceedings.