ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday granted pre-arrest bail to activist-lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, in a case linked to a protest by the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) dating back to July 2025, which resurfaced earlier this week.
Justice Muhammad Azam Khan approved the couple’s pre-arrest bail applications, ordering their release against surety bonds of Rs10,000 each, and restrained police from arresting them in the case presently before the court.
The bail hearing followed dramatic developments a day earlier, when Mazari and Chattha were unable to secure an urgent hearing on their bail pleas and spent the night inside the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) president’s office to avoid arrest. A heavy police contingent remained deployed outside the premises throughout the night.
During Wednesday’s hearing, senior lawyer Kamran Murtaza appeared on behalf of the petitioners, while a large number of lawyers and IHCBA officials packed the courtroom in a show of solidarity. Addressing the court, Murtaza said this was the first time in Pakistan’s judicial history that a woman had been forced to spend the night inside court premises to avoid arrest, adding that he personally felt responsible for the situation.
He argued that the petitioners had been regularly appearing before courts in multiple cases since July and questioned the sudden revival of an old case. “If there had been an old case, they would have arrested her first,” he remarked, urging the court to ensure that no one was taken into custody from within the high court premises.
“We are not enemies of the country. Just as you have the right to be in this building, I also have the right to be here,” Murtaza told the court, requesting protective bail and directions barring arrest in any other case unless formally brought on record.
In response, Justice Khan observed that the court’s orders would be limited strictly to the FIR under consideration, adding, “I am passing orders only to the extent of the FIR that is before me.” He subsequently granted protective bail to Mazari and Chattha in the case and restrained police from arresting them.
The case relates to a protest organised by the Baloch Yakjehti Committee last year. It surfaced a day after the IHC had already granted the couple one-day protective bail in a separate case concerning controversial social media posts.
In that parallel case, registered by the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA), Mazari and Chattha have been accused of inciting divisions on linguistic grounds through social media and of creating the impression that the armed forces were engaged in terrorism within the country. Arrest warrants in that matter were issued by an Islamabad trial court last week.
On Tuesday, the IHC declared those arrest orders null and void, directing that the couple be given four days to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. The high court categorically clarified that Mazari and Chattha should not be arrested in that case while also warning that the protection would automatically lapse if they failed to appear before the trial court. It further directed that proceedings could continue in accordance with the law in the event of non-appearance.
Meanwhile, an Islamabad district and sessions court resumed hearing in the social media posts case on Wednesday. Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka expressed displeasure over the continued absence of the accused and warned that their right to cross-examination would be terminated if it was not completed within the court-mandated timeframe.
At the start of the proceedings, an assistant counsel for Mazari and Chattha informed the trial court that the IHC was simultaneously hearing their bail pleas and that the accused would appear once proceedings at the high court concluded. The trial court subsequently adjourned the hearing until 1:30pm.
The developments highlight mounting legal pressure on Mazari and Chattha, even as their lawyers argue that the revival of old cases and overlapping proceedings amount to harassment and an attempt to curtail dissent.
