LAHORE:
The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Saturday granted bail after arrest to a man accused in a human trafficking case linked to the sinking of a boat off the coast of Libya, killing 73 migrants.
The court ruled that a simple transfer of money to a defendant’s bank account does not constitute sufficient proof of guilt unless it is directly linked to his or her knowing involvement or to an organized criminal network.
Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, ruling on Muhammad Tahir’s bail application, observed that investigators had only established that the funds were routed through an account bearing the petitioner’s name, the Madina Traders account, but had themselves found that the account was actually managed and controlled by a third party, Akbar Ali of Gojra.
That finding, the court said, left the prosecution’s case against Tahir without the evidence necessary to either link him to an organized smuggling group or to show that he received the money with active knowledge of its purpose.
Based on this, the court found that the petitioner had warranted further investigation and ordered his release on bail against sureties of Rs.0.5 million.
The tragedy behind the affair
The case stems from the sinking of a migrant boat off the coast of Libya on the night of April 5 to 6, 2026, during which 73 people died, including a young man named Ameer Hamza Shoukat.
According to the FIR filed by his brother, Kamran Shoukat, Hamza was persuaded in 2025 by an alleged agent, Luqman Hakeem of Tehsil Phalia, Mandi Bahauddin district, who had promised to arrange his trip to Italy for Rs 3.5 million.
Read: 50 migrants reportedly lost off the coast of Libya
The family said they paid installments to several accounts, including one linked to Khurram Shahzad, another to Zohaib Haider, one to AK Air Travels and Rs0.9 million to the Madina Traders account associated with Tahir.
Hamza was allegedly transported to Libya via Saudi Arabia, where he was held captive and further ransom payments were demanded before the fatal journey.
The FIR was registered at FIA CC Police Station, Gujrat, under the provisions of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and the Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act, 2018.
Arguments of the defense and the prosecution
Tahir’s lawyer argued that his client had never met the complainant or the victim and that his alleged role was based on a single financial transaction, which investigators themselves traced control to Akbar Ali.
He argued that instead of addressing the transnational dimensions of the case through mutual legal assistance or cross-border research, the agency had settled for weaker circumstantial links and further sought to invoke anti-money laundering charges as what he called a routine fallback when direct evidence is lacking.
Learn more: Convictions of deportees in Libya rise to 64
The Assistant Attorney General, representing the State, argued that the unexplained transfer of funds to the petitioner’s account itself raised a presumption of complicity which called for an explanation on the part of the accused.
The Court noted, however, that this argument did not take into account the international dimension of the case; no requests for cooperation with foreign counterparts and no references to criminal networks operating from Libya were recorded.
In a detailed order, the judge laid out the standard of proof required to establish a prima facie case under the 2018 law, describing it as a “51% probability” threshold that investigators must meet through admissible evidence rather than mere suspicion.
The judgment sets out, section by section, what investigators are supposed to collect in illicit trafficking cases, from documentary and digital evidence such as logs, travel documents and electronic communications, to call data records, site inspections and travel histories of victims, in order to establish a suspect’s “intentional” and active engagement in illicit trafficking under Section 3 of the Act.
Applying this standard, the court found that the case against Tahir fell short: the prosecution had demonstrated a transaction but not knowledge, control or organizational involvement, which the law requires before a financial connection alone can support a smuggling charge.
The court granted bail of Rs 0.5 million with a surety in the same amount, on condition that the petitioner does not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses, does not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the court without permission and surrenders his passport while remaining available for investigation or trial.
The court clarified that its observations were provisional and would not affect the merits of the case at trial, and that the bond could be canceled if it was misused.
