TODAY’S PAPER | February 16, 2026 | EPAPER

Out and about: Hajj scam accused gets bail

Primary accused already out on bail; PFF presidency challenged in separate case.


Our Correspondent November 11, 2014 1 min read

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday granted bail to a former religious affairs joint secretary who is accused of involvement in the 2010 Hajj corruption case.

Chief Justice Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi accepted the bail application of Raja Aftabul Islam against surety bonds of Rs10 million.

The court directed him to submit his passport to the court and barred him from travelling abroad without the court’s permission.

The court also warned him that his bail would be withdrawn if he skips trial court proceedings.

The petitioner’s counsel in his bail application maintained that his client has been behind bars since 2012 and requested the court to grant him bail.

He informed the bench that the apex court had already granted bail to the primary accused, former Hajj DG Rao Shakeel Ahmed.

In December 2010, the Supreme Court took suo moto notice of corruption allegations regarding Hajj arrangements and later remanded the case to the trial court of the special judge central.

On October 17, 2012, the special court in Rawalpindi rejected Ahmed and Islam’s bail pleas.

Islam has been indicted on charges of fraud, breach of trust, forgery and abetment, among others.

According to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) both the accused received 5.1 million Saudi Riyals as kickbacks while making Hajj arrangements in 2010 and arranged substandard accommodations in Makkah and Medina after charging pilgrims exorbitant rates.

Football fight

In a separate case, the same bench issued notices to the Pakistan Sports Board (PSB), Pakistan Football Federation President Faisal Saleh Hayat, and Islamabad Football Federation President Dr Fazlur Rehman after a petitioner contended before the court that the football officials were still occupying their seats despite the lapse of their tenures.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that in a 2012 order, the apex court had stipulated time periods for holding posts, but the PSB has not implemented the SC order. The bench directed the respondents to submit their replies within two weeks.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 12th, 2014.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ