Dawn Images

A sessions court on Wednesday confirmed the pre-arrest bail of model-turned-actor Nadia Hussain in a multi-million-rupee embezzlement case.

The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had booked Atif Muhammad Khan, the model’s husband and former CEO of Alfalah Securities, along with others, on the complaint of the private trading company.

Earlier, Hussain had obtained interim bail from the court after the FIA in its charge sheet alleged that between 2016 and 2023, the company funds had been intermittently transferred to Khan’s personnel bank accounts.

It was further alleged that he subsequently transferred various amounts to his acquaintances, with the major beneficiary being his wife’s business account, Nadia Hussain Salon and MedSpa, to which a total of Rs26.417 million had been transferred.

After hearing lengthy arguments from defence counsel Muhammad Farooq and complainant counsel Haider Waheed and Barrister Asad Ashfaq Tola, Additional District and Sessions Judge (South) Ihsan Ali Malik confirmed her pre-arrest bail against a surety bond of Rs200,000.

The court observed that, in view of the lack of direct evidence, the manner of her nomination in the case, her cooperation during the investigation, and the principle of further inquiry, the applicant had made out a case for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail.

It added that the prosecution appeared to be focused on the conduct of Khan and others working with the company, while the material available on record did not indicate that the applicant had any role in the management, control, or manipulation of the company’s financial affairs.

The court further noted that there was no substantial evidence to suggest that Hussain had authorised, consented to, or participated in the alleged fraudulent transactions. It remarked that the law does not permit declaring a person guilty merely by association.

Moreover, the investigating officer had remained silent and failed to present a single valid ground in opposition to the bail plea.

During the arguments, defence counsel contended that after the registration of the FIR against the model’s husband, the IO allegedly summoned her, claiming that a certain amount from her husband’s bank account had been credited to her business account.

Originally published in Dawn, June 12th, 2025