RAJESHWAR SINGH, J. This matter relates to bail in respect of one Mohammad Jamal who is involved in a murder case. 2. When I started sitting here it was noticed that in a good number of bail matters copy of F. I. R. and post-mortem report were not filed. Some cases had to be adjourned for this purpose but to avoid accumulation of cases it was considered proper that in same cases, where Government Advocate would give necessary information. A bail applications were disposed of even in the absence of F. I. R. or post- mortem report had not been filed by the applicant. His application was disposed by the following orders ;- "the learned Government Advocate concedes that the role of the present applicant, and of those who have already been granted bail, is the same, of firing. When some persons have been granted bail, it will be hardly justified to keep the accused/appli cant in jail. As regards the distinction made in the statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. to that much imperative cannot be attached at this stage. Let the applicant Mohammad Jamal of Case Crime No. 163 of 1985 Loni Katra, district Barabanki be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing sureties to the satisfaction of C. J. M. Barabanki. " 3. Now the matter is again before me in pursuance of another order passed by me on 16-12-1987. This order is as given below :- "as Judge incharge of Criminal Section I inspected some files including the file of Mohd. Jamal v. State, Cri Misc Case No. 2048 (B) of 1987. It is bail application. There is an affidavit that the bail is being claimed on the ground of parity with some others. There was no F. I. R. on the record. On being conceded by the Govern ment Advocate that the role of the applicant was not different from others who were on bail the bail was granted by me. During the course of inspection I found that the affidavit and verification are not signed by the deponent. One learned Advocate has identified the deponent and Oath-Commissioner has signed the affidavit in token of being affirmed before him without being signed by the deponent. During the course of inspection I found that the affidavit and verification are not signed by the deponent. One learned Advocate has identified the deponent and Oath-Commissioner has signed the affidavit in token of being affirmed before him without being signed by the deponent. All these facts taken together alongwith the absence of the FIR on record create a doubt whether the allegations made in the application and affidavit were correct. So issue notice to the applicant of this case and deponent to appear in this court on 20-1-1988 to show cause as to why affidavit was not signed and also file a copy of the F. I. R. to satisfy that his case is similar to that of others who were granted bail. If he does not appear on 201-1988 there will be no option except to cancel his bail and it may be considered again after getting and going through the record whether his case is similar to that of others. Also in form the learned Government Advocate who conducted this case that he should get a copy of the F. I. R. and see the file of this case. The learned Advocate who identified the deponent and the Oath Commissioner who signed the affidavit shall also be informed to tell the court on the date fixed as to how the affidavit was verified when it was not signed by the deponent. Government Advocate may also contact the complainant and D. G. C. con cerned to find out true facts. " (Sd. ). . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-12-1986. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the case was taken up on 20th January, 1988. There is no explanation from the side of the learned Advocate who identified the deponent and the Oath Commissioner who verified the affidavit. On behalf of the applicant Mohd. Jamal copy of First Information Report has been filed. 4. After going through the first information report, it appears that it was against a number of persons but one murder was specially attributed to one Moinul Hasan and three murders were specifically attributed to the present applicant Mohd. Jamal. Besides this Mohd. Jamal also injured on person by a firearm. Further F. I. R. shows that among the accused Mohd. After going through the first information report, it appears that it was against a number of persons but one murder was specially attributed to one Moinul Hasan and three murders were specifically attributed to the present applicant Mohd. Jamal. Besides this Mohd. Jamal also injured on person by a firearm. Further F. I. R. shows that among the accused Mohd. Jamal, Moinul Hassan were the persons who used to take begar from Harijans who decided not to do it. Then it was the field of Mohd. Jamal which was with the com plainant in connection with the labour done by the complainant and its crop was being harvested by Mohd. Jamal and his persons when the complainant requested not to do it then Mohd. Jamal and his companions attacked result ing in the aforesaid four murders and injuries to certain persons. So from the reading of the report it is clear that Mohd. Jamal was the main person on account of whose field the entire incident took place and at his instance. Besides this, he is the person who committed three murders and non-else committed three murders. One person Moinul Hasan committed one murder but it appears from the order of the Lower Court that Moinul Hasan was not granted permanent bail and he was granted only a short term bail for a few months. Thus the case of Mohd. Jamal is entirely different from others and it is worse than of Moinul Hasan, who seems to have been refused permanent bail. 5. But the date when the bail order was passed, this F. I. R. was not before me and these facts were not mentioned. It was said in paragraph 11 of the bail application that case of applicant Mohd. Jamal was similar to that of Mashrul Mohd. Kamal and Mohd. Farced. This is obviously wrong because the F. I. R. does not show that these persons committed murders. It was in this content that this affidavit, which purports to be that of Raisul Hasan was not signed by the deponent, though one Advocate identified him and the Oath Commissioner verified. Kamal and Mohd. Farced. This is obviously wrong because the F. I. R. does not show that these persons committed murders. It was in this content that this affidavit, which purports to be that of Raisul Hasan was not signed by the deponent, though one Advocate identified him and the Oath Commissioner verified. Under the circumstances the order dated 12-8-1987 granting bail on the concession made by the Scale that the role of applicant and others who had been granted bail, is the same, is based on wrong impressions and facts or rather on misrepresentation and it should be withdrawn and bail cancelled. 6. In the order that was served on the applicant Mohd. Jamal it was clearly said that he shall show cause as to why affidavit was not signed and also file a copy of F. I. R. to satisfy that his case similar to that of others who were granted bail. He has not satisfied that his case is similar to others who have been granted bail though he filed a copy of F. I. R. Being account by Advocate, he could have shown it then and there that his case is similar to others who have been granted bail. This rather indicates that he has nothing much to say on this point. 7. His learned counsel argues that if the notice given to the applicant i. e. order dated 16-12-1987 is treated as a notice for cancellation of bail then another date be given for hearing. I think there could be no difficulty in showing from the F. I. R. that the case of Mohd. Jamal was similar to others, but it has not been done and from the facts given earlier it is clear that case of Mohd. Jamal is different and he has secured the bail by misrepresenting the facts and writing wrong facts in the affidavit which was not signed. So it will be abuse of the process of the court if the matter is adjourned and a person is allowed to remain on bail secured by misrepresentation. Therefore, the bail order, dated 12-8-1987 should be cancelled forthwith. 8. However, it is possible that on 12-8-1987 when bail was granted on the ground of parity other point may not have been argued on behalf of Mohd. Jamal on merits. Therefore, the bail order, dated 12-8-1987 should be cancelled forthwith. 8. However, it is possible that on 12-8-1987 when bail was granted on the ground of parity other point may not have been argued on behalf of Mohd. Jamal on merits. So it will be proper to give an opportunity of arguing his bail application on merits and not to dispose of it out-right just now. Of course if he could show on that day that his case is similar to any one else, he would be permitted to do so. 9. In the circumstances of the case, I would not like to hear this bail application. I release it and it shall be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal. 10. It is ordered that the bail granted to Mohd. Jamal by the order, dated 12-3-1987 on the ground of parity is cancelled and his application for bail is fixed for a fresh hearing on merits and it shall be listed before the appropriate Bench. I release this case and I do not want to hear the tame. Copy of this order shall be sent to the Sessions Court and C. J. M. Barabanki within 3 days by Registered Posts. Bail cancelled. .