1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of grant of bail in a Murder case, by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court.
2. The allegation against the accused was that they used lathis and hatchets in the occurrence. The learned Judge observed that there are two parts of the F. I. R. In the first part Najabat and Iqbal, respondents, were, along with other accused, allegedly armed with lathis, but in the other part, they were stated to have caused the injuries with the blunt side of the hatchets. On account of this discrepancy, which appeared to the learned Judge to be apparent on the record, it was thought that the case of the two respondents was distinguishable, therefore, while dismissing the application of the other accused, they were allowed bail. Khushal Khan who is the first informant in the case has moved this petition against the order granting bail to the respondents, on the ground that even according to the first part of the F. I. R. Photo-stat copy of which has been filed with the petition, Najabat and Iqbal, respondents, were also armed with hatchets. It has been contended that the impugned order is based on misreading of the F. I. R.
3. We have perused the copy of the F. I. R. Produced before the learned Single Judge in the High Court, as also the Register of F. I. Rs. Produced by the learned Assistant Advocate-General. While it is correct that according to the original F. I. R. Najabat and lqbal were allegedly armed with hatchet and nowhere, not even in the first part of the F. I. R. They were alleged to have carried lathis, it cannot be denied that in the certified copy of the F. I. R. Filed in the High Court and which was read before the learned Single Judge, the respondents, alongwith some others, were (in so far as the first part thereof is concerned` alleged to have carried lathis.
4. Thus it is not a case of misreading in the sense generally understood. The learned Judge did not, at all, misread the F. I. R. Which was placed before him. Therefore, leave cannot be granted on this ground. At the, same time we are of the view that the petitioner would be fully justified in, moving an application for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under subsection (5) of section 497, Cr.
5. P. C. For cancellation of bail granted to the respondents and their consequential arrest and custody.
6. Now that it has been discovered that the so-called certified copy of the F. I. R. Produced, from the respondents' side in the High Court, contained a forgery on a vital point, the petitioner would be at liberty to bring this aspect of the case to the notice of the High Court as a ground for cancella-- petition of bail. Learned Assistant Advocate-General made a request that the question of use of a forged copy of the F. I. R. Should also be enquired into. The request has been made in the context of a point arising in this case. The question of forgery would undoubtedly arise before the High Court as and when the petitioner moves an application under section 497(5),Cr. P. C. The learned High Court would be within its competence to deal with this aspect of the matter as well in accordance with law.
7. With the foregoing observations, this petition is dismissed.