A single bench of the IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Athar Minallah conducted hearing of the petition moved by Mazari praying to the court to quash the FIR registered against her and directed the respondents to submit their response in this matter.
The Pakistan Army had filed a first information report against Imaan for “abusing and defaming” the army and Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa. However, the IHC granted Imaan pre-arrest bail till June 9 in the case.
The petitioner was booked under sections 505 and 138 (abetment of act of insubordination by soldier) of the Pakistan Penal Code.
During the hearing, IHC Chief Justice remarked that the case registered against Imaan Mazari by a state institution should have been withdrawn after the accused had her statement recorded in the case.
He further remarked that in her statement, Imaan had written that the comments on which the case was based were unintentional and she was stressed at the time.
Justice Athar also asked from her whether she had explained herself to the police after becoming a part of the investigation. In his reply, her counsel stated that Imaan had joined the investigation and had answered police questioning. She informed the court that they had written in the statement that they did not make any statement against the Pakistan Army.
Later, the court deferred the hearing till June 9 for further proceedings in this matter.
Defaming Pakistan Army
Earlier, the petitioner submitted her statement to the IHC, in which she said the allegations against her were “baseless”.
She said that on 21.05.2022, the petitioner’s mother became the subject of an unlawful arrest, which left the petitioner distraught. “The petitioner had been informed by her mother, in advance of this illegal arrest, that the latter had been involved in a couple of heated altercations with the Chief of Army Staff, though the Petitioner had no knowledge of the content of the conversations,” said the petitioner.
It added, “More importantly, the petitioner had been warned by her mother that something untoward may occur to the latter on account of these exchanges. Therefore, the petitioner had reason to believe that the sudden nature of her mother’s illegal arrest could be linked to her mother’s falling-out with the COAS. This suspicion that someone influential was behind the arrest was strengthened by the bizarre attitude of the relevant police officials and various Government officials who stated that they were unaware of the Petitioner’s mother’s whereabouts, and refused to divulge any information regarding the aforesaid arrest.”
“Distressed at the aforesaid statements of the authorities and being aware of the context leading to her mother’s unlawful arrest, the petitioner, when approached by various individuals (including court reporters), voiced her suspicions regarding the possible perpetrators behind her mother’s disappearance. The only concern which the petitioner had in that moment was the safe return of her mother and the initiation of a lawful inquiry into the reasons behind her mother’s illegal arrest, for which reason she felt that it was necessary to name suspects whom she believed could be involved in her mother’s unlawful detention, maintained the petitioner.
She contended that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed for being merely a malicious attempt at silencing the Petitioner and curbing her right under Article 19 to express herself.
She continued that any such interpretation would amount to a draconian curb on a person’s right to expression, in addition to being an absurd dismissal of the credibility of the Armed Forces as an institution of this country. It is thus clear that the impugned FIR is merely an attempt to silence the petitioner by implying that a comment of hers somehow has the power of stirring thousands of soldiers into mutiny. Such an unreasonable position speaks merely to the mala fide inherent in the impugned FIR, for which the Impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
Therefore she prayed to the court to declare that the impugned FIR was registered without lawful authority and declare that the impugned FIR is a product of mala fide. She also requested the court to quash the impugned FIR and any proceedings initiated on the basis thereof.