Sexual Offender Flees to Pakistan After Retaining Passport on Bail

Bail conditions permitted Amar Ilyas to retain his passport after charges for 20 sexual offences against five girls. The court did not require its surrender despite the prosecution’s opportunity to contest the application. Ilyas travelled to Pakistan in July 2025 and failed to return for his September trial.

Sheffield Crown Court convicted him in his absence and imposed a minimum 27-year sentence. Victims reported they had assumed standard restrictions would apply once charges were filed. One described the outcome as an insult because human rights considerations protected the offender while he had shown none to his victims.

Bail Application Process

No request for passport forfeiture was made during the bail hearing. The prosecution had the chance to object yet did not press for travel restrictions. Ilyas had previously travelled abroad while on earlier bail and returned, which appears to have informed the decision to allow continued possession of his document.

The National Crime Agency now pursues extradition from Pakistan, where processes are described as difficult. Officers state they are conducting proactive enquiries. The judge who sentenced the offender and his two brothers called the flight the coward’s route and directed law enforcement to use all means to execute the warrant.

Victim Impact and System Response

Three survivors told the BBC they feel unable to leave their homes while the offender remains free abroad. One noted that survivors may hesitate to come forward after learning an offender can abscond without consequence. Another questioned why passport retention was granted when the offences involved girls as young as 12.

Government statements attribute bail decisions to the independent judiciary. The NCA confirms efforts to secure return but provides no timeline. Specialist support organisations describe the case as evidence of wider gaps in handling sexual violence cases.

The pattern shows repeated instances where procedural allowances for defendants override measures to secure attendance at trial. Victims receive lifelong anonymity yet face ongoing uncertainty because enforcement relies on foreign cooperation after the fact. Institutions record the conviction but deliver no immediate custody when the offender has already departed.

This case illustrates how UK criminal justice records outcomes while failing to guarantee enforcement against those granted bail. Offenders who reach jurisdictions with limited extradition treaties face minimal practical consequences. The system prioritises procedural rights over preventing flight, leaving victims to absorb the resulting absence of accountability.