LAHORE:
The Lahore High Court on Saturday granted bail following his arrest to a man accused in a human trafficking case linked to a boat that capsized off the coast of Libya, killing 73 migrants.
The court held that a mere transfer of money to an accused’s bank account is not sufficient proof of guilt unless it is directly related to his knowing participation or an organized criminal network.
Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, while deciding Muhammad Tahir’s bail plea, observed that investigators had only established that the funds were routed through an account bearing the name of the petitioner, the Madina Traders account, but they themselves had discovered that the account was actually operated and controlled by a third party, Akbar Ali of Gojra.
That conclusion, the court said, left the prosecution’s case against Tahir without the evidence necessary to link him to an organized smuggling group or to show that he had received the money with active knowledge of its purpose.
On this basis, the court held that the petitioner had filed a case for further investigation and ordered his release on bail against sureties of Rs 0.5 million.
The tragedy behind the case
The case arises from the sinking of a migrant boat off Libya on the night of April 5-6, 2026, in which 73 people died, including a young man named Ameer Hamza Shoukat.
According to the FIR filed by his brother, Kamran Shoukat, Hamza had been persuaded in 2025 by an alleged agent, Luqman Hakeem of Tehsil Phalia, Mandi Bahauddin district, who promised to arrange his trip to Italy for Rs 3.5 million.
Read: 50 migrants feared lost off Libya
The family said they paid dues into various accounts, including one linked to Khurram Shahzad, another to Zohaib Haider, one to AK Air Travels and Rs 0.9 million to the Madina Traders account associated with Tahir.
Hamza was allegedly sent 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 the FIA CC Police Station, Gujrat, in accordance with the provisions of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and the Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act, 2018.
Defense and accusation arguments
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 had traced to Akbar Ali’s control.
He argued that instead of addressing the transnational dimensions of the case through mutual legal assistance or cross-border tracing, the agency had settled for weaker circumstantial links and had also sought to invoke anti-money laundering charges as what he called a routine resort when direct evidence is lacking.
Read more: Sentences of deportees from Libya rise to 64
The Deputy Attorney General, representing the state, argued that the unexplained transfer of funds to the petitioner’s account raised a presumption of complicity that required an explanation on the part of the defendant.
The court noted, however, that this argument did not address the international dimension of the case; There is no request for cooperation with foreign counterparts nor any reference to criminal networks operating from Libya.
In a detailed order, the judge laid out the evidentiary standard required to establish a prima facie case under the 2018 Act, describing it as a “51% probability” threshold that investigators must meet through admissible evidence rather than just suspicion.
The ruling sets out, section by section, what investigators are expected to gather in smuggling cases, from documentary and digital evidence such as ledgers, travel documents and electronic communications, to data records, site inspections and victims’ travel histories, to establish a suspect’s “intentional” and active involvement in smuggling under Section 3 of the Act.
Applying that standard, the court concluded that the case against Tahir fell short: The prosecution had shown a transaction but not knowledge, control or organizational involvement, which the law requires before a financial link alone can support a smuggling charge.
The court granted bail on sureties of Rs 0.5 million with surety in the same amount, subject to the conditions 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 it remains 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 bail could be canceled if it was misused.
