JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. At the commencement of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners without arguing on merits of the case, submits that in this matter earlier FIR was filed in which after investigation final report was given by the Police, thereafter, protest petition was filed, upon which, learned trial Court took cognizance and issued warrant of arrest against the petitioners. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that admittedly in this case, no case was found against the petitioners in the investigation made by the police, therefore, final negative report was given but on the basis of protest petition and statement recorded by the trial Court, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners. In this view of the matter for securing the presence of accused, summons were required to be issued but learned trial Court has issued warrant of arrest against the petitioners, therefore, the order of cognizance dated 03.07.2010 may be modified and instead of warrant of arrest, the trial Court may be directed to secure the presence of the petitioners while issuing bailable warrant and petitioners will appear before the trial Court. 4. In the interest of justice, I deem it just and proper to modify the order of cognizance dated 3.7.2010 to the extent of issuing arrest warrant against the petitioners. The petitioners are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20.8.2010 and in the event of appearance before the trial Court, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 20,000/- and two sureties of like amount on usual conditions and face trial. 5. Accordingly, this misc. petition is disposed of.Petition Disposed of as Above. *******