1. ' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---The applicant is booked in Crime No, 3 of 2010 registered with Police Station Belo Mirpur, for offences under sections 395, 394, P.P.C. And 173, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. ' The allegation against the present applicant, according to F.I.R. No, 3 of 2010, dated 28-1-2010, is that he along with others, on 17-1-2010 at about 1-00 a.m., duly armed with weapons entered into the house of complainant, where he untied the buffalo, while rest of the accused, in his company, took away the buffalo, gold ornaments and cash Rs, 50,000.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is delay of eleven days in lodging of F.I.R.
4. Which has not been explained by the Prosecution. He further says that no recovery, whatsoever, has been effected from the present applicant. He has invited my attention to the F.I.R., wherein only allegation against the present applicant is that he has untied the buffalo from the house of complainant. There is no allegation against the present applicant of taking away buffalo individually but allegations are general. It is further argued that present applicant was already booked in Crime No, 5 of 2010 of Police Station, Belo Mirpur. He says that since the present applicant was in custody and was granted bail by the Court, the Police has planted present case upon present applicant with mala fide intention. He further argues that complainant party did not make report with regard to injury or decoity to the Police immediately. He further says that Police has not visited the place of Vardat. He, in support of his contentions, placed reliance on Meenhal and others v. The State (2007 M LD 214).
5. ' On the other hand learned A.P.-G. Has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and argued that complainant party immediately approached the relevant Police Station and narrated the story about decoity but the Police did not record the F.I.R. Of the complainant. However the injured was referred by the Police for Medical Examination. He further says that on receipt of Medical Certificate, present applicant approached the relevant Police Station and lodged F.I.R., though after delay of eleven days. He further says that though F.I.R. Was not lodged by the Police but it was negligence on the part of Police. Prosecution should not suffer due to lapse on the part of Police. He further says that present applicant is habitual offender and may not be granted bail.
6. ' I have heard the learned counsel for parties and have gone through the record as well as the case-law cited at the bar.
7. ' The delay in lodging the F.I.R. Is apparent on the face of it and no plausible explanation has been put forth. It is admitted position that no recovery, whatsoever, has been effected from the present applicant. It is also admitted position that though the complainant party approached the Police Station and got referral letter from the Police for medical treatment but F.I.R. Was not lodged. From the perusal of record, it appears that the complainant, after getting treatment and after due deliberation with other companions, lodged this F.I.R against the present applicant and others.
8. Since there is delay in lodging of F.I.R. And there A is no recovery from the present applicant, the Judgment cited by learned counsel for the applicant is fully applicable to this case, as in the reported case, learned Single Judge of this Court (as he then was), while dealing with the point in issue, has recording his findings as under:- "The matter, was reported to Police after three days i.e, on 7-8-2006 and the explanation that the complainant was trying to recover the motorcycle privately can hardly be treated as plausible.
9. The applicants were arrested on 18-8-2006 and were in the custody of Police upto 1-9-2006 but no recovery either of the stolen motorcycle or of any weapon was made from them. All these circumstances militate against reasonableness of the grounds put forward by the prosecution for believing the applicants guilty of the offence and the matter requires only further enquiry as contemplated by section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898".
10. ' In my opinion this is a fit case in which further enquiry in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Is called for.
11. ' Accordingly, I admit the applicant to bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac) and execution of Personal Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.