JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that order dated 19.07.2010 whereby petitioner was summoned to stand trial by way of warrant of arrest be set aside along with the order dated 13.04.2012 passed by the revisional Court whereby order of the trial Court was affirmed. 2. Briefly stated a FIR was lodged by Gurmel Singh S/o Darshan Singh wherein he stated that on 15.08.2004 at about 3.30 p.m. accompanied by Ajay Kumar and Satpal, he was going to meet his sister. At that time Bhanwar Bishnoi came armed with 12 bore Pistol, he was hiding near the bank of canal. Bhanwarlal at that stage fired from the pistol, which hit on the back of Ajay Kumar. Pawan Kumar son of Bhanwar Lal was armed with the lathi at that time two other persons namely Ram Kumar and Rajendra Bhadu were standing armed with Kastia. 3. Shri Gurnam Singh appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since in the FIR no overt role was assigned to the petitioner- Rajendra, Investigating Agency found him innocent and submitted negative report qua the petitioner. It is stated that on the protest petition filed by the complainant, statements of the complainant and injured were recorded. 4. Learned counsel has read the statement of Gurmel Singh recorded by the Court on 03.06.2005. In his testimony Gurmel Singh has not named the petitioner, he only stated that Bhanwarlal and his son Pawan and Vishnu was accompanied by two persons who belonged to Khichad caste. 5. Counsel for the parties have jointly stated that the statement of injured Ajay Kumar is not available on the file of this petition. However, Prithaviraj another witness had also not named petitioner. Shri A.R.Nikub has relied upon the statement of Jagdish recorded at pre summoning stage wherein he stated that Bhanwar Lal was armed with Pistol and his sons Vishu was armed with gun and Pawan with the lathi. The only role assigned to the petitioner was that he was hiding along with main accused near the bank of canal. 6. From above following un-controverted facts emerge for consideration of the Court:- (I) That in the FIR no overt role was assigned to the petitioner. (II) That the Investigating Agency had not found version of the complainant to be truthful. 6. From above following un-controverted facts emerge for consideration of the Court:- (I) That in the FIR no overt role was assigned to the petitioner. (II) That the Investigating Agency had not found version of the complainant to be truthful. (III) That complainant in the court in pre-summoning evidence has not named the petitioner, however, Jagdish another witness has named the petitioner to be one who was hiding along with main accused. 7. From above facts, the question to be answered by the Court is whether petitioner shared common intention or common object of unlawfully assembly with the main accused. This requires appreciation of evidence therefore, prayer for quashing of the proceedings at this stage cannot be granted in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. However, considering the fact that no overt role was assigned to the petitioner and the Investigating Agency has found petitioner to be innocent, this Court is of the view that summoning of the petitioner by warrant of arrest is not called for. Hence, warrant of arrest is converted as a bailable warrant. On appearance in the trial Court, bail bond executed by the petitioner shall be accepted and he shall be permitted to join the trial.In view of above, the present petition is disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******