An anti-terrorism court (ATC) on Wednesday acquitted Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) leader Mahrang Baloch of charges of sedition, creating hatred among communities, public mischief and unlawful assembly.
Police had booked her under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) for unlawful assembly in Landhi, making speeches against state institutions and security forces, and creating hatred among communities.
They had registered a case against her under sections 148, 149, 124-A, 153-A, 500 and 505 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), read with Section 7 of the ATA, 1997, at the Quaidabad police station.
Her counsel Mohammad Jibran Nasir filed an acquittal application saying she is innocent and has been involved in this false case with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives.
Nasir argued that the falsity of the FIR stands further confirmed by the statement of the then Quaidabad SHO, who publicly admitted, as reported in the print media on October 12, 2024, that no rally or protest of any kind had taken place in Landhi on the day of the alleged occurrence.
He said that this categorical admission from the very officer in charge of the relevant police station demolishes the substratum of the prosecution’s case. As per the charge sheet, no independent or impartial witness of the alleged incident has been cited or produced, he added.
He also said that the only purported witness is the complainant himself, despite the fact that the alleged occurrence was claimed to have taken place in a public setting where independent witnesses ought to have been readily available.
This selective omission not only undermines the credibility of the prosecution’s case but also reflects mala fide intent to falsely implicate the applicant, he added.
He argued that as per the challan, no video or audio evidence showing the applicant’s presence or involvement in the alleged incident was ever collected, and the entire challan is based on her alleged speeches or activities that allegedly took place in different cities and on different dates.
He said the applicant is already facing multiple politically motivated FIRs for various alleged speeches and actions, and prosecuting her through multiple FIRs for the same alleged speeches is equivalent to double jeopardy and abuse of the process of law.
The challan itself demonstrates that the case rests exclusively on allegations relating to speech and expression, and there is no factual substratum to support the application of sections 148 and 149 of the PPC, he added.
He contended that despite the lapse of over nine months, the investigating officer has failed to collect key and material evidence essential for substantiating the allegations in the FIR.
He said the complainant himself is a habitual offender and a person of questionable character, as he has repeatedly been nominated in multiple criminal cases.
There is every plausible and reasonable ground to believe that the complainant has only been used as a prop to lodge a fake FIR by exerting pressure on him in the background of criminal cases pending against him, he added.
Assistant Prosecutor General Sajida Kareem Qazi vehemently opposed the acquittal application, arguing that the allegations are of a grave and serious nature, involving acts that undermine public order and the state’s authority.
Sajida argued that the IO has collected sufficient and incriminating material connecting the accused with the alleged offences, which is available on record and can be produced before the court as and when required.
She also argued that the applicant is a habitual offender and is involved in several criminal cases of a similar nature, so she is not entitled to any leniency or extraordinary concession.
She argued that the applicant incited hate speech against state institutions, and disseminated seditious and inflammatory material with the intent to provoke public unrest, thereby posing a direct threat to the stability and security of the state. She requested that the application being premature, misconceived and devoid of merit, may accordingly be dismissed.
The ATC bench headed by Judge Ayaz Mustafa Jokhio said the complainant had lodged the FIR but not produced any independent witnesses to prove his contention.
The court said the IO had cited five witnesses in the charge sheet but except the complainant, the remaining are police officials who do not know about the facts of the alleged incident.
The bench said that even in their statements, the witnesses have not stated a single word about the alleged incident, which shows they have no knowledge about it.
The court said the FIR was registered on October 11, 2024, while the IO submitted a challan on August 16, 2025, without furnishing a reason as to why he submitted the challan after a delay of 10 months.
The bench said the law has vested trial courts with the power to see through the wall, so instead of allowing weak, deficient and inadmissible proposed evidence during trials, courts must exercise their power to save precious public time, and conduct meaningful proceedings in other pending matters.
The court said that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence, and so it acquitted her of the charges brought against her.
