JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused in this case along with co-accused Raj Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client would be better advised to raise all the objections which he has raised by way of this misc. petition before the trial Court at the stage of framing of charge. However, learned counsel submits that the order, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to be summoned by warrant of arrest is improper in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Mohan Goswami & Ors. v. Govt. of Uttaranchal & Ors., reported in 2008 Cr.L.R. (SC) 574 . Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be summoned through bailable warrant. 3. I have perused the orders impugned. 4. The prayer made on behalf of the learned counsel for appearance of the petitioner is reasonable. The order impugned to the extent, whereby, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner is upheld. The petitioner is given liberty to raise all the objections/arguments before the trial Court at the stage of framing of charge. 5. However, the portion of the order, whereby, the petitioner has been summoned through warrant of arrest is hereby set aside. It is directed that now the petitioner shall be summoned by issuing bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court within four weeks from today and furnish his bail bonds in accordance with the terms of the bailable warrant issued. Record of the case be sent back forthwith. 6. Consequently, this misc. petition as well as the stay petition stand disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******