1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.---F.I.R No,73 of 2011 was recorded at Police Station, C-Section, Sukkur on 29-5-2011 for an, incident alleged to have taken place on 25-5-2011 at 1130 hours. Complainant was one Muhammad Mehtab. He stated that on the eventful day at about 1130 hours four persons trespassed into the house by breaking the door. They took out pistols and pointed at the complainant and his family members. Present applicant is alleged to be one of those persons who, it is alleged, asked wife of the complainant to hand over the gold chain, pair of earring and ring.
2. They were consequently handed over. Another accused person opened an almirah and took out Rs,20,000. Yet another took out mobile phone. Thereafter threats were given and the accused fled away. The complainant further stated that after incident when he came out of his house, he was informed by his neighbour Muhammad Hanif that the accused persons went on a motorcycle.
3. Complainant stated that he narrated the incident to others and went towards Behaar Colony to the house of the applicant where he came to know that the applicant had disappeared. After searching for a few days, the complainant went to police station and lodged the F.I.R.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is a delay of four days, in lodging of the F.I.R and the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. He further submitted that no recovery has been effected from the applicant and no such recovery has been shown in the report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. On 16-6-2011.
5. ' Learned Assistant Prosecutor-General vehemently opposed the bail application and produced a mashirnama of recovery recorded on 4-6-2011 wherein it is alleged that in presence of two witnesses one gold chain, one pair of earring and one ring were recovered at the pointation of the present applicant. I.O. Muhammad Abdullah Sangri present in Court was asked as to why such recovery is not stated in the report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C.; he stated that it has been due to a mistake.
6. ' I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
7. ' Applicant stated that he is less than 11 years of age. Learned Assistant Prosecutor-General submitted that no such ground has been taken in the bail application and learned counsel for the applicant submitted that when he drafted the bail application he had not seen the applicant. Be that as it may, the question as to the age of the applicant can only be determined by the Court in accordance with section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
8. ' Two contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant were: firstly that the F.I.R. Was recorded after delay of four days and secondly no recovery has been shown in the report submitted under section 173 Cr.P.C. Deserve their due weight. Statement of the I.O. That due to a mistake he did not mention the recovery in the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. May be true but certainly creates a doubt. For these two reasons i.e, for delay and for the fact that no recovery is stated in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C, in my opinion the applicant is entitled to concession of bail. Consequently this application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be admitted to bail upon executing a P.R.
9. Bond in the sum of Rs,200,000 with one suety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
10. ' Before parting with the order, since the mashirnama states that recovery was made on 4-6-2011 and such recovery is not recorded in the report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. And considering the fact that in this case the only real piece of investigation was the recovery, the statement by the I.O. That it was due to simple mistake does not appear to be a statement which can be taken without a pinch of salt. Consequently, DPO is directed to initiate departmental enquiry against the I.O. For such sloppy investigation and for inexcusable lapse of memory even if his statement that he forgot to mention is taken as true.