' SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.---Applicants are booked in Crime No,6 of 2011 registered at Police Station Aliabad for offence under sections 324, 353, 148, 149 P.P.C., 13-D Arms Ordinance read with section 7 ATA, 1997.
' The facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Are that on 2-6-2011 at 0530 hours complainant Muhammad Sulleman Waggan received telephone message from S.P Investigation Shaheed Benazirabad and SPO Daulatpur that notorious dacoits Ghulam Qadir alias Qado Malah,
2. Shahan alias Shahu Machi and others who were wanted in Crime No,18 of 2011 under section 365- A, P.P.C. And section 7 ATA of Police Station Daulatpur were going to cross from Sukhpur forest to Katcha path of Ismail Shah graveyard in order to shift Agha Shahid Hussain and four other hostages shown in the above case for shifting them from Sukhpur forest to another place. On receipt of such information, the complainant along with his subordinate staff duly armed With official weapons reached at the pointed place where SP Investigation Shaheed Benazirabad along with his staff, SPO Daulatpur along with his staff and other police officials of various police stations were also reached there. Police saw 08 persons armed with KKs and five other persons roped arms from backside were coming front side of Sukhpur forest. It is further alleged that HC/990 Habibullah disclosed that they were notorious dacoits Ghulam Qadir alias Qado Mallah,
2. Shahan alias Shahu Machi,
3. Nazir Gopang,
4. Irshad Wassan and rest were their companions. Police raised Lalkara to the culprits and there was an encounter of about 30 minutes between them. Consequently, 7 armed dacoits absconded away by taking advantage of forest whereas one dacoit namely Manzoor Ali son Muhammad Essa alias Esso Malah was apprehended who disclosed the names of absconding accused to be Ghulam Qadir alias Qado,
2. Shahan alias Shahu,
3. Nazir,
4. Irshad Wassan,
5. Zikrullah Bughio,
6. Yaseen Bughio and 7. Habibullah Bughio. The apprehended accused also disclosed the names of roped arms persons to be hostages as Agha Shahid Hussain,
2. Himat Lal,
3. Abdul Rahim Memon,
4. Sadique Memon and 5. Sharif Khushk and further disclosed that about four months back he and his companions had kidnapped them from NHW Daulatpur for ransom. The hostages also disclosed their identification to be the same which apprehended accused Manzoor Ali disclosed before the police and they stated that they were kidnapped by accused for ransom. Thereafter, police brought the accused., and the abductees at Police Station where such F.I.R. Was registered.
' Prior to this bail application, all the above named applicants/ accused had filed pre-arrest bail application before the trial Court. After hearing the learned advocates of the parties, the same was rejected on 4-7-2011. Since some of the accused were absconding in the pending case before the trial Court, hence after rejection of pre- arrest bail application, the above named applicants/accused were remanded to jail custody to face the trial. Subsequently, the applicants/accused filed post-arrest bail application which was also heard and dismissed on 2-8- 2011, hence this bail application.
' It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case in hand due to enmity with one Shuja Muhammad, the caste fellow of applicants/ accused over some landed property. It is contended that applicants have been involved on the statement of apprehended accused Manzoor Ali which is not admissible under the law. It is further contended that alleged encounter took place for about 30 minutes but none of either side received any injury. Learned counsel contended that statements of alleged abductees were recorded after the delay of 10 days without any plausible explanation. He lastly contended that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of present applicants/accused. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the cases reported as 2011 M LD 1075 and 2011 YLR 2311.
' On the other hand, learned A.P.G appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that applicants/accused are nominated in the F.I.R. With their specific roles. The statements of alleged abductees were recorded by police in which they have clearly implicated the present applicants/accused. He further contended that applicants/accused are involved in a heinous offence which carries capital punishment and the same also -falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. He lastly contended that there was an encounter between the police party and accused persons which took place for about 30 minutes, resultantly police succeeded in apprehending one accused namely Manzoor so also recovered the abductees.
' We have heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.P.G. For the State and perused the material available on record.
' The present applicants/accused along with absconding accused were involved in a case Crime No,18 of 2011 under sections 365-A, P.P.C. And 7 ATA, 1997 of Police Station Daulatpur. On the day of incident, the' police on a tip that abductees, of above crime are being shifted by accused persons from Sukhpur forest to another place through katcha path of Ismail- Shah graveyard. As such a joint operation was launched by police who surrounded the dacoits along with abductees in a jungle. An encounter took place between them which continued for about 30 minutes, as a result thereof, 7 dacoits fled away from the scene of offence, only one dacoit namely Manzoor Ali surrendered before the police who dropped his arms and was subsequently arrested and weapon was recovered by police. He was interrogated by police thoroughly. The act of the accused persons show that they fired upon the police party and obstructed them from performing their lawful duties. There are large number of witnesses who have witnessed the incident that include police officials and the abductees. The evidence of police officials cannot be brushed aside in these circumstances. Their evidence is also corroborated by the abductees. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that evidence of police officials is as good as that of any private person unless there appears enmity with the police. The accused are facing trial in number of heinous offences which cannot be ignored at this stage. Moreover, the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants is different and distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand. Therefore, we are of the considered view that applicants/accused have failed to make out a case for grant of bail which is accordingly dismissed.