Judgment N.K. Jain, J.-The petitioners Gopal and Kamla have filed this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401, CrPC against the order dated 04.02.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FT) Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 29/2002 arising out of FIR No. 345/2001 registered at P.S. Nihalganj, Dholpur whereby the learned trial Court while taking cognizance under Section 319, CrPC against the petitioners for offence under Section 498-A and 304-B summoned them through warrant of arrest. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that so far as the Petitioner No. 1 Gopal is concerned he has already been arrested, therefore, he does not press the present revision petition on his behalf . 3. So far as Petitioner No. 2 Kamla is concerned, the Counsel for the petitioner submits that she does not press this revision petition on her behalf on merits but her limited prayer is that warrant of arrest issued against her may be converted into the bailable warrant in view of the fact that alleged main accused Jitendra has already been acquitted from the offence under Section 304-B, IPC and petitioner being a lady and further that this revision petition is pending in this Court for a period last more than 2 and half years. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that initially prosecution agency itself , after investigation of the case, filed a final report against the petitioners but after recording statement of some of the prosecution witnesses, the trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Section 319, CrPC and they have been summoned through warrant of arrest. He further contended that the co-accused husband of the deceased namely Jitendra @ Bobby was tried by the trial Court and after completion of trial vide Judgment dated 110.2003 he has been acquitted from the offence under Section 304-B, IPC and he has been convicted only under Section 306 and 498-A, IPC and his appeal is pending before this Court. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the revision petition. 6. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the revision petition. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and examined the impugned order dated 04.02.2003 as well as the Judgment dated 110.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 (FT), Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 29/2002 whereby the co-accused Jitendra @ Bobby was acquitted from the offence under Section 304-B, IPC. 7. It is not disputed that after investigation of the matter, the prosecution did not file challan against the petitioners and it is only during the trial of the case that cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the above offences. The petitioners have been summoned through warrant of arrest. The petitioner is a lady. The Petitioner No. 1 Gopal has already been arrested and he is facing trial. The revision petition is pending in this Court for a period last more than two and half years. 8. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties, I allow this revision petition in part. The revision petition of Petitioner No. 1 Gopal is dismissed as not pressed. The revision petition of Petitioner No. 2 Kamla is partly allowed. The order taking cognizance against her is maintained but the warrant of arrest issued against her is converted into the bailable warrant. The Petitioner No. 2 Kamla is directed to appear before the trial Court on or before 10.11.2005. In case she appears before the trial Court then she will be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with an undertaking to appear in that Court as and when she is called upon to do so. The Petitioner No. 2 Kamla will not be arrested till then. 9. The revision petition stands disposed of in the manner as indicated above.