LAHORE:
The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Saturday granted bail following the arrest of a man accused in a human smuggling case linked to a boat that capsized off the Libyan coast, killing 73 migrants.
The court ruled that a mere transfer of money to an accused’s bank account is not sufficient evidence of guilt unless it is directly linked to his knowing involvement or to an organized criminal network.
Judge Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, deciding Muhammad Tahir’s bail application, noted that investigators had only established that funds were routed through an account bearing the petitioner’s name, the Madina Traders account, but had himself found that the account was actually run and controlled by a third party, Akbar Ali of Gojra.
That conclusion, the court said, left the prosecution’s case against Tahir without the necessary evidence to link him either to an organized smuggling ring or to show that he had received the money with active knowledge of its purpose.
On that basis, the court held that the petitioner had made out a case for further investigation and ordered his release on bail against a surety of P0.5 million. Rs.
The tragedy behind the case
The case stems from the sinking of a migrant boat off Libya on the night between 5 and 6 April 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, District Mandi Bahauddin, who promised to arrange his trip to Italy for Rs3.5 million.
Read: 50 migrants are feared lost in 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 linked to Tahir.
Hamza was allegedly sent to Libya via Saudi Arabia, where he was held captive and further ransom was demanded before the fatal journey.
The FIR was registered at the police station FIA CC, Gujrat under the provisions of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and the Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act, 2018.
Arguments for defense and prosecution
Tahir’s lawyer argued that his client had never met the complainant or the victim and that his alleged role rested on a single financial transaction, one that investigators themselves had traced back to Akbar Ali’s control.
He argued that instead of pursuing 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 fallback when direct evidence is lacking.
Read more: Sentences of the deported 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 that required an explanation from the accused.
However, the court noted that this argument did not address the international dimension of the case; no request for cooperation with foreign counterparts and no reference to the criminal networks operating in Libya appeared on the record.
In a detailed order, the judge laid out the evidentiary standard required to establish a prima facie case under the 2018 law, describing it as a “51% probability” threshold that investigators must meet through admissible proof rather than suspicion alone.
The judgment set out, paragraph by paragraph, what investigators are expected to collect in smuggling cases, from documentary and digital evidence such as ledgers, travel documents and electronic communications, to call data records, on-site inspections and victims’ travel histories, to establish a suspect’s “intentional” and active involvement in smuggling under section 3 of the Act.
Applying this standard, the court found the case against Tahir to be short: the prosecution had shown a transaction, but not the knowledge, control, or organizational involvement required by law before a financial connection alone can support a smuggling charge.
The court granted bail for bail of Rs0.5 million with a surety in the same amount, on the 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 remarks were preliminary and would not affect the merits of the trial and that bail could be canceled if misused.
