ATC Jails Imaan Mazari, Hadi Ali Chattha For 13 Years

انسداد دہشت گردی عدالت نے ایمان مزاری اور ہادی علی چھٹہ کو 13، 13 سال قید کی سزا سنا دی

ATC Jails Imaan Mazari, Hadi Ali Chattha For 13 Years

An Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) on Thursday sentenced human rights lawyers Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha each to a total of 13 years in prison and imposed fines of Rs200,000 on each in a case relating to the removal of barriers and alleged interference with official duties in Islamabad.

The sentences will run concurrently, effectively reducing their prison term to 10 years, with the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra announced the verdict in Adiala Jail after hearing final arguments from the defence and prosecution.

The court also acquitted the two accused of charges under Sections 506(ii), 120-B, 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), ruling that allegations under these provisions had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the verdict, both lawyers were sentenced to 10 years in prison and fined Rs100,000 each under Section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act.

They were also awarded two years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs50,000 each under Section 353 of the PPC, and one year in prison with a fine of Rs50,000 each under Section 186. The court directed that all sentences run concurrently and issued a written judgment following the conclusion of the trial proceedings.

During the hearing, defence counsel Aimal Mandokhail submitted a written application seeking postponement of the verdict, arguing that the court should not deliver its judgment while petitions, including an application for transfer of the case, remained pending before the Supreme Court and the high court.

The court proceeded to announce its decision after hearing arguments from both sides and reviewing all available legal records pertaining to the incident. The case was registered at the Aabpara Police Station on October 25, 2024, following the removal of barriers on Faisal Avenue during the movement of a cricket team.

The court considered statements by police witnesses, material evidence, and video footage while deciding the case to ensure a transparent judicial process.

Related coverage