JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner, while challenging the order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby the learned trial court allowed the application under section 319 CrPC and took cognisance against the petitioner for the offence under section 302, 341, 147, 148, 149 IPC preferred by the complainant. Later on, the petitioner was summoned through arrest warrant. 2. After arguing the matter for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent that the arrest warrant issued by the learned trial court for summoning the petitioner may be converted into bailable warrant. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 251 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court when summons or bailable warrants would be unlikely to have desired result. This could be when: It is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in court; or the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon; or it is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into custody. As far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that a summon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the summon or the bailable warrants should be preferred. The warrants either bailable or non-bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequence and ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants. The court must very carefully examine whether the Criminal Complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive." 4. It is noticed that the trial court has not given any specific reason for summoning the petitioner through arrest warrant. When the presence of the petitioner, before the trial court, can be ensured by summoning him through bailable warrant then there is no need to issue arrest warrant in the matter. It is noticed that the trial court has not given any specific reason for summoning the petitioner through arrest warrant. When the presence of the petitioner, before the trial court, can be ensured by summoning him through bailable warrant then there is no need to issue arrest warrant in the matter. If the petitioner fails to appear before the trial court even after service of bailable warrant or if the bailable warrant is not served upon the petitioner on account of his non-availability, the trial court can order for issuance of arrest warrant for ensuring his presence before it. 5. Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case and relying upon the judgment rendered in Inder Mohan Goswami's case (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to convert arrest warrant of the petitioner into bailable warrant. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court within a period of two weeks from date of receipt of this order and furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and two surety bond of like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial court. The impugned order dated 30.08.2013 is modified accordingly.With these observations, this revision petition is disposed of.The stay petition is also disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******