' ZIA PERWEZ, J.--- This petition is directed against the judgment dated 10-11-2008 Criminal Bail Application No,269 of 2008, whereby respondent No,1 was admitted to bail for the offence under sections 364/302, P.P.C., arising out of F.I.R. No,72 of 2007, registered at Police Station Brigade, Anti Violent Crime Cell (AVCC), Karachi.
2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Suleman Sabir was brought at Mizar-e-Quaid on 21-4- 2007 at about 5-00 p.m. By his uncles. On his failure to return, an F.I.R. Was lodged under section 364, P.P.C. Pertaining to apprehended abduction of the deceased. Further investigation led to recovery of telephone data and record of movement of Suzuki Alto Car No,AJX-741 and ultimately arrest of respondent No,1 at whose pointation the dead body of deceased was recovered.
3. Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, has contended that this is one of the few cases where investigation has been conducted on the basis of electronic record of telephone calls made from Telephone No,0333-2442524 which was traced to land line No,021-6637388, in use by respondent No,l. In addition, the record of car of the accused being No,AEF-164 from record tracker was traced to coincide with the timings of presence of the deceased at Mizar-e-Quaid and his subsequent movement to the factory from where he made telephone call shortly afterwards. Finally, the dead body was recovered from the Nallah as pointed out by respondent No,
1. Consequently, prima facie, respondent No,1 could be connected to the gruesome crime and hence the impugned judgment granting bail was to be reversed. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the cases reported in Asmat Ullah Khan v. Bazi Khan and another PLD 1988 SC 621, WAPDA through its Chairman, v. Shujjat Ali Baghdadi PLD 1988 SC 622, Mst.
Perveen Akhtar v. The State and others 2002 SCM R 1886, Talat Mahmood V. Muhammad Ilyas and others 2002 SCM R 1889, Haji Akbar Khan v. Abdullah Khan and others 1994 SCM R 660, Muhammad Amir v. The State 1994 SCM R 662, Syed Maqbool Muhammad v. The State 2005 SCM R 635, Shamin Ahmed Kazmi v. PIAC 2005 SCM R 638, Muhammad Hanif v. Shafqat Nazir and others 2007 SCM R 1857, Executive Engineer Qadirabad Barrage Division Qadarabad and others v. Ejaz Ahmed 2007 SCM R 1860, Ehsan Akbar v. The State and others 2007 SCM R 482, Akbar Ali v. The State 2007 SCM R 486, Jamashed Ahmed v. The State 2006 M LD 288, Rasheed Ahmed v. DPO, Lodhran and others 2006 M LD 294, Mst. Rashid Begum v. Abdul Rashid and others 1990 SCM R 579 and State through A.G., N.-W.F.P and another v. Sajjad Hussain and others 1990 SCM R 581.
4. Ms. Rehana Akhtar, Additional Prosecutor-General, Sindh appearing on behalf of the State has supported the petition.
5. Mr. Shaukat Hayat, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No,1, while opposing the petition, has contended that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge of learned High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. In fact, the recovery is not supported by any memo. Of recovery and the present accused was not at the spot of recovery which makes the entire proceedings doubtful. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the cases reported in Muhammad Akram v. Zahid Iqbal and others 2008 SCM R 1715, National Accountability Bureau v. Khalid Masood and another 2005 SCM R 1291 and Muzaffar Tqbal v. Muhammad Imran Aziz and others 2004 SCM R 231.
6. On perusal of the record in the light of the arguments advanced before us, we find that the impugned order of learned Single Judge of learned High Court is not based on proper appreciation of material available on record in its true perspectives. In the instant case, the prosecution traced the record of telephone calls, the particulars of the person using the telephone calls were traced out with regard to land line connection installed at the residence of respondent No,l. The record of car tracker showing movement of car No,AEF-164 coincided with the timings and movement of the deceased. The memo. Of recovery pertaining to the pointation by respondent No,1 leading to recovery of the dead body of the deceased and recovery of his CNIC along with dead body constitute, prima facie, evidence sufficient to connect respondent No,1 with the commission of the offence which cannot be ignored on the pretext of the case of further inquiry. Although a deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage is not desirable and is to be carried out during the trial yet such exercise is reflected from the impugned order in the instant case. This court has already held that a ground of further inquiry should be based on a rational conclusion arrived at with reference to the peculiar facts of the case and not mere hypothetical and whimsical statement contrary to the material available on record.
7. In the cases of Asmat Ullah and Mst. Perveen Akhtar (supra), the term 'further inquiry' has been considered. It was held that mere possibility of further inquiry which exists almost in every criminal case is no ground for taking the matter as one under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. In the case.Of Haji Akbar Khan (supra), this Court affirmed the view that where allegations contained in the F.I.R., duly corroborated by the record, constitute offences of serious nature, such facts disentitle the accused from the concession of bail. The same principle was applied in the cases of Syed Maqbool Muhammad and Muhammad Hanif supra. In the case of Ehsan Akbar supra, cancellation of bail was ordered where deeper appreciation and comments on the merits of the case were considered at the time of grant of bail. Likewise, in the case of Mst. Rashid Begum supra on consideration of well-established practice of the superior courts regarding release on bail, the bail was cancelled.
8. In the case of Muhammad Akram supra, the petition for cancellation of bail did not find favour in the absence of exceptional grounds necessary for consideration of such a petition. The facts and circumstances of the present case, as narrated above, make out such grounds, therefore, this case is distinguishable. In the cases of National Accountability Bureau and Muzaffar Iqbal supra, this Court held that consideration for cancellation of bail to be different and called for exceptional circumstances not considered by the trial Court. The impugned order being passed in ignorance of the material on record, does constitutes special circumstances attracted to the petition. Therefore, the principle laid down by this Court are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case for recall of the order of bail,
9. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is converted into appeal and is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 10-11-2008, passed by learned High Court of Sindh, Karachi granting bail to respondent No,1, B is set aside. Respondent No,1, present in person, be taken into custody and sent to jail forthwith.
10. Observations made above are tentative in nature for consideration of this petition for cancellation of bail only.