LHC grants bail in Libya boat tragedy case, rules bank transfer alone not proof of smuggling
The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Saturday granted post-arrest bail to a man accused in a human-smuggling case linked to a boat that capsized off the Libyan coast, killing 73 migrants.
The court held that a mere transfer of money into an accused’s bank account is not sufficient evidence of guilt unless it is directly tied to his knowing involvement or to an organised criminal network.
Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, deciding the bail petition of Muhammad Tahir, observed that investigators had established only that funds were routed through an account bearing the petitioner’s name, the Madina Traders account, but had themselves found that the account was actually operated 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 needed to link him either to an organised smuggling group or to show he had received the money with active knowledge of its purpose.
On that basis, the court held the petitioner had made out a case for further inquiry and ordered his release on bail against surety bonds of Rs0.5 million.
The tragedy behind the case
The case stems from the sinking of a migrant boat off Libya on the night between April 5 and 6, 2026, in which 73 people died, including a young man named Ameer Hamza Shoukat.
According to the FIR lodged 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 travel to Italy for Rs3.5 million.
Read: 50 migrants feared lost off Libya
The family said they paid instalments into 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 routed to Libya via Saudi Arabia, where he was held captive and further ransom payments were demanded before the fatal voyage.
The FIR was registered at Police Station FIA CC, Gujrat, under provisions of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, and the Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act, 2018.
Defence and prosecution arguments
Tahir’s counsel 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 contended that instead of pursuing the case’s transnational dimensions through mutual legal assistance or cross-border tracing, the agency had settled for weaker circumstantial links, and had additionally sought to invoke anti-money-laundering charges as what he called a routine fallback when direct evidence is lacking.
Read more: Convictions of Libya deportees rise to 64
The assistant attorney general, representing the state, argued that the unexplained transfer of funds into the petitioner’s account itself raised a presumption of complicity that called for an explanation from the accused.
The court noted, however, that this argument did not address the case’s international dimension; no request for cooperation with foreign counterparts, and no reference to the criminal networks operating out of Libya, appeared on record.
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% likelihood” threshold that investigators must meet through admissible proof rather than suspicion alone.
The judgment set 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 call data records, site inspections and victim travel histories, to establish a suspect’s “intentional” and active engagement in smuggling under Section 3 of the Act.
Applying that standard, the court found the case against Tahir fell short: the prosecution had shown a transaction but not knowledge, control, or organisational involvement, which the law requires before a financial link alone can support a smuggling charge.
The court granted bail on surety bonds of Rs0.5 million with one surety in the like amount, subject to conditions that the petitioner not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses, not leave the court’s territorial jurisdiction without permission, and surrender his passport while remaining available for investigation or trial.
The court clarified that its observations were tentative and would not affect the merits of the case at trial, and that bail could be cancelled if misused.Read More
