JUDGMENT Arguments heard. Diary perused. The applicant apprehending his arrest in connection with crime No. 3/98 registered at Police Station, Shahpura (Mandla) for offences punishable under section 456 IPC, has moved this application under section 438 Cr.P.C. The prosecution case in brief is that on 7.1.98, when the prosecutrix was sleeping on a cot, she suddenly woke and found that the applicant was standing nearby. When the prosecutrix wanted to shout the applicant gagged her mouth and started abusing her and thereafter fled away from the spot. A report was not lodged immediately but was lodged on 10.1.98. The present applicant apprehending his arrest, moved an application under section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla, which was registered as bail petition No. 27/98. On 21.1.98, the police informed the Court that no offense was registered against the present applicant. Thereafter the police again wanted to arrest the applicant, the refore, he moved another application under section 438 Cr.P.C. His subsequent application was rejected by the Court, therefore, the applicant has filed the present application. After going through the entire case diary, I do not find any good reason in the case diary as to why the investigating officer/Station House Officer in charge of the said Police Station informed the Court that no offence has been registered against the present applicant. It appears that either the said, officers were absolutely incompetent when they made a report to the Court that the applicant is not to be arrested or they wanted to play fraud with the Court by informing the Court that no offence was registered against the present applicant. The diary shows that on 10.1.98, offence was registered and it was taken up for investigation. On 10.1.98 and 11.1.98 certain Panchanamas were prepared and number of statements were recorded on 10.1.98 and 11.1.98. If that was so, there was no good reason for the said officers to inform the Court that the applicant was not likely to be apprehended in connection with a cognizable non-bailable offence. On 10.1.98 and 11.1.98 certain Panchanamas were prepared and number of statements were recorded on 10.1.98 and 11.1.98. If that was so, there was no good reason for the said officers to inform the Court that the applicant was not likely to be apprehended in connection with a cognizable non-bailable offence. Considering the nature of the allegations, non-explanation of delay in lodging the first information report and the conduct of the prosecution agency, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant deserved to be protected by an order under section 438 Cr.P.C. In the event of his arrest, the applicant shall be immediately released by the officer arresting him on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer arresting him for his appearance before the said officer for interrogation and/or before the trial Court or as and where so directed. A copy of this order be sent to the superintendent of Police Mandla, who shall make an enquiry that why the Investigating Officer/Station House in charge sent a false report to the Court that no non-bailable offence was registered against the present applicant. The Superintendent of Police shall inform this Court about the enquiry within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.