The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday ordered authorities to inform the court before arresting human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir in any case.

Imaan and former lawmaker Ali Wazir were arrested earlier this month. A pair of first information reports (FIR) were registered against the two at Islamabad’s Tarnol police station and Counter-Terrorism Department (CTD) police station.

The arrests were made two days after a public meeting, organised by the Pashtun Tahaffuz Move­ment (PTM). Wazir, a PTM member, and Imaan had both addressed the rally, with videos circulating on social media showing speakers critici­sing the military establis­hment over enfor­ced disappearances.

On August 28, Imaan had received bail in the sedition case but was re-arrested within hours by the Islamabad police in connection with a freshly filed terror case. The following day, an anti-terrorism court (ATC) had handed her over to police on a three-day physical remand in the same case.

Subsequently, on August 30, the IHC had barred the police from arresting Imaan in any case registered after August 20 — when she was first arrested.

On September 2, Imaan was granted post-arrest bail in the terror case against surety bonds worth Rs10,000. She was subsequently released.

Earlier today, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb of the IHC took up Imaan’s plea seeking the details of the FIRs registered against her and protective bail. The plea was filed last week.

At the outset of the hearing, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Munawar Iqbal Dogal informed the court that after the previous hearing, he had written to the provinces seeking the details of the cases against Imaan, as well as communicated the same over fax and WhatsApp.

“The petitioner should not make such statements,” the AAG added, referring to Imaan’s speech during the PTM rally.

At this, Justice Aurangzeb said, “We are disposing of the case. If there is any [new] FIR, then you will inform the court.”

The petition

In the plea filed last week on Tuesday, Imaan had sought “protective omnibus bail” to allow her to approach the relevant court for “bail before arrest and take part in the investigation”.

The plea made the state, the Islamabad inspector general, city senior superintendent of police, Adiala Jail superintendent and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) respondents in the case.

It had urged the IHC to issue directives barring the respondents and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) from “arresting, harassing or restricting” Imaan’s liberty and from taking any adverse measure for a period determined by the IHC.

The petition also requested the IHC to direct the respondents to provide details of all cases registered against the petitioner in Islamabad and the rest of the country.

It argued that Imaan had been “arrested and re-arrested again and faced the uncertain apprehension of arrest on account of other unknown FIRs”. “This factum and treatment meted out to her despite the continuation of formal court procedures gravely endangers her fundamental rights,” it asserted.

It further stated that the police had “mechanically arrested and re-arrested Ms Hazir without ascertaining if her detention serves any purpose to furthering the investigation, especially where two courts have already granted her bail”.

The plea also recalled a previous verdict wherein, it said, the court had ruled that “no separate FIR is to be recorded for any new version of the same incident”.

The petition noted: “This is precisely the situation that Ms Hazir faces whereby like clockwork, a new FIR, which was unbeknownst till such time, surfaces and prompts the police into arresting her.”

It also claimed that on August 20, when Imaan was presented before a judicial magistrate, he had struck down Section 395 (punishment for dacoity) from one of the two initial FIRs filed against her, “noting that the contents of the FIR do not constitute the said offence”.