JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 22.9.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Sri Ganganagar. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge directed the summoning of the petitioners as additional accused in the case. 2. I have heard learned counsel and perused the impugned order. The learned trail Judge directed the summoning of the petitioners as additional accused after referring to the evidence which was produced before the Court and after due consideration of all the circumstances appearing on record. The order impugned cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. 3. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial against principal accused has already been culminated and there is concluded order of 319 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners, as such their trial has to be gone into afresh. The petitioners have been directed to be summoned by warrant of arrest. The principal accused has been acquitted from the charge under Section 104-B and has been convicted for the offence under Section 498A only against which appeal has been filed by the accused Kishanlal being S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 784/2002, which is pending before this Court. 4. In this view of the matter, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are directed to be summoned by bailable warrants instead of warrant of arrest. 5. The direction to summon the petitioners by warrant of arrest is set aside and instead the petitioners are directed to be summoned by bailable warrants of 7 25,000 each. The petitioners shall appear before the trial Judge and furnish bail bonds within a period of four weeks. 6. The Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly.Revision petition disposed of. *******