' The facts leading to the present application for bail are that applicant is facing trial in a case under sections 353, 324 P.P.C. Before find Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South), which has arisen out of F.I.R. No,75 of 1999 of Police Station Clifton, South, Karachi.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant A.S.-I.
Muhammad Saleem on 23-2-1999 are that on the fateful day he was on patrolling duty in his area when at about 3-00 a.m. He received spy information that one person having one unlicensed fire- arm is present in Shireen Jinnah Colony, Karachi. On this information he reached at the pointed place where he found applicant/accused standing. On seeing the police party the accused opened fire upon them with the result P.C. Muhammad Irfan received bullet injuries on his right thigh. In retaliation on the firing of P.C. Muhammad Irfan, applicant/accused also received injuries and he fell down on the ground. One unlicensed T.T. Pistol with ammunition was recovered from his hand. He was arrested and report was lodged under sections 353, 324, 34, P.P.C. And a separate F.I.R. Under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance was also registered against him.
3. The applicant/accused applied for bail before the trial Court but his bail plea was refused by impugned order, dated 1-4-1999.
4. I have heard Syed Qamar Ali Jarchavi, for the applicant/accused and Mr. Muhammad Saleh Punhwar, learned counsel on behalf of Advocate-General for the State. The latter vehemently opposed the bail plea of applicant/accused.
5. The perusal of record shows that the applicant/accused opened fire on the police party with the result that P.W. P.C. Muhammad Irfan, who was member of police party, sustained fire-arm injuries at his hands and in the encounter applicant/accused also sustained fire arm injuries which confirm his participation in the commission of crime. He was arrested on the spot and weapon of offence was also recovered from his possession.
6. Merely because offences with which the applicant/accused is charged are not punishable with death, imprisonment for life is no ground for grant of bail.
7. The plea that no private person has been made witness in the case, therefore, the evidence of police officers should not be believed and discarded is not tenable in law. The evidence of a policemen cannot be ignored at this stage as a police man is as good a witness as any other person until and unless evidence is brought on record to disbelieve him.
8. The citations in the cases of Haji Muhammad Abbas v. The State 1996 SCM R 1134, Wazir Zaman v.
The State and another 1996 PCr.LJ 722, Nusrat Ali v. The State 1997 SCM R 876, Shaukat Hayat and others v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 524, Abdul Ghaffar v. The State and another 1995 PCr.LJ 862, Muhammad Muzaffar v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 1345 and Zulfiqar v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 2285 relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused are distinguishable and the facts and circumstances of the cited cases are different from the present case.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that there are reasonable grounds to believe that applicant/accused is prima facie guilty of the offence and his bail plea merits dismissal.
Consequently, application stands dismissed.