' MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.---The applicant has applied post-arrest bail in Crime No, 66 of 2007, Police Station, Dad Laghari, lodged under sections 324, 353, 148,
149. P.P.C, 7.ATA and 13(d) A.O.
2. The bail application moved by the applicant in the trial court was dismissed vide order dated 14- 12-2010.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 2-7-2007, SIP/S.H.O. Ghulam Nabi Shaikh on behalf of the State lodged F.I.R. That on 2-7-2007, P.C, Aijaz Ahmed and P.C. Haji Muhammad were patrolling on private motorcycle and after sometime, complainant and other staff on Govt. Vehicle with ammunitions also proceeded from Police Station for patrolling, where P.C. Haji Muhammad informed them through phone that during patrolling he saw six persons standing on well No,11 along with one motorcycle and police gave Hakal to them and asked them to throw weapons, but they made direct fires. During encounter, P.C. Aijaz Ahmed was injured and two accomplices of criminals were also died, remaining four criminals were firing on police party. On hearing such information, complainant along with other staff also reached there and criminals started firing upon them also for committing their murder. After firing, four criminals ran away towards southern side. H.C. Shabir Malik, H.C. Ashique Hussain and P.C. Altaf Hussain identified escaped criminals and disclosed their names as Liaquat Pitafi (present applicant), Saleh alias Saloo and Jum Pitafi. During encounter three criminals died and identified as Bagh Khushk, Ashique Pitafi and Esso Pitafi and one KK each was recovered along with magazines from Bagh Khushk and Ashique Pitafi and one pistol from Esso Pitafi and one motorcycle having registration No, Nil was also recovered. In the encounter, P.C. Aijaz Ahmed received fire arm injuries on his right arm and chin and he was sent to Taluka hospital for treatment.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and all the P. Ws. Are interested and subordinate to the complainant and no independent person has been shown as eye-witness of the occurrence. He further argued that Mashirs of arrest are also police officials and no independent person has been taken to act as Mashir. He further argued that the injuries to P.C. Aijaz Ahmed do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He further argued that police has lodged various criminal cases against the applicant but in most of the cases, he was acquitted. It was further averred by the learned counsel that the applicant was not present at the place of incident, but he has been falsely involved, therefore, case of the applicant falls within the phrase of further inquiry and he is entitled to be released on bail.
5. The learned D.P.G. For the State opposed the bail Application and argued that three police officials have identified the applicant and other co-accused with weapons, who were attacking on the police party to cause their murder. He further argued that three culprits died during encounter and two KKs and one pistol were recovered from them. He further argued that 18 empties of KK, 11 empties of G.3 rifle and 15 other empties were recovered from the place of incident. F.I.R. Was lodged in the year 2007 and the present applicant remained absconder at least for two years. He further argued that the applicant has criminal record and he is required in many criminal cases, therefore, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned D.P.-G., we are of the view that three police officials have clearly identified the present applicant armed with weapon and he along with his other accomplices was engaged in firing upon the police party. It is also a fact that three alleged culprits died on the spot and one police constable was severally injured. During encounter besides recovery of other empties, complainant himself consumed 29 bullets from Govt. SMG rifle and one motorcycle was also recovered from the accused persons having registration No, Nil. Since specific role has been assigned to the applicant, therefore, at this stage, no reasonable ground exists in our mind to hold that the applicant is not involved in the crime in question. There is also nothing on record to show that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the police in this case. The complainant in the F.I.R. Further stated that the police officials in uniform warned the accused persons to surrender weapons but instead of surrendering, they started firing with intention to cause murder of the police party which involves serious coercion and intimidation of a public servant in order to refrain them from discharging their lawful duties and also violence against the members of police force, which attracts section 6 of A.T.A, 1997. So far as the plea of the learned counsel for the applicant that no private person was associated as Mashir is concerned, we do not feel any hesitation to hold in the cases of encounter when firing from both sides is alleged, the availability of private or independent mashir cannot be expected as nobody from public will stake his life to danger and stay there as spectator. It is well- settled now that police employees are competent witnesses like any other independent witnesses and their testimony cannot be discarded merely for the reason that they are police employees, therefore, in the case in hand, the non-availability of private mashir cannot be considered a ground for further inquiry.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this bail application is dismissed. The observations made above are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party. Since the challan has been submitted, therefore, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial preferably within a period of four months. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.