JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Instant Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner Prakash S/o Mohan Lal against the Order dated 27.5.2014 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Cases-cum-Sessions Judge, Churu whereby, the said Trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code for offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, no allegation was levelled by the prosecutrix against the petitioner but later on during trial, in the Court, it is specifically stated by the prosecutrix that petitioner also committed rape upon her. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Trial Court has wrongly taken cognizance against the petitioner while ignoring important aspect of the matter that in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement recorded under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code, no allegation was levelled against the petitioner by the prosecutrix and police submitted F.I.R. against the petitioner, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that specific allegation was levelled against the petitioner upon which the Court took cognizance upon filing application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court for taking cognizance against the petitioner for the alleged offence. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the application can be filed under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code anad after recording statement in the trial, if any allegation is recorded against the person, the Court has power to add the accused person as co-accused, if allegations are levelled against him. Admittedly, in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, no allegation was levelled against the petitioner but in the statement recorded under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code, during investigation so also in the trial, specific allegation is levelled against the petitioner for committing rape with the Prosecutrix. 7. In view of above, no interference is called for in the impugned order because the Trial Court took cognizance after taking into consideration the statement recorded under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code as well as in the trial, therefore, the Revision Petition is hereby dismissed. 7. In view of above, no interference is called for in the impugned order because the Trial Court took cognizance after taking into consideration the statement recorded under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code as well as in the trial, therefore, the Revision Petition is hereby dismissed. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the main accused against whom challan was filed is on bail, therefore, the Trial Court may be directed to convert the warrant of arrest into bailable warrant and petitioner may be provided opportunity to furnish bail bonds and surety as deemed fit by the Court. 8. After taking into consideration entire facts of the case, the petitioner is hereby directed to surrender before the Trial Court and file an application for regular bail. On filing such application, the Trial Court shall decide that application on the same day and at the time of deciding application, the Trial court shall consider the fact that main accused has already been enlarged on bail and pass appropriate order. The petitioner may appear before the Trial Court within one month. Till then, he shall not be arrested.Revision Dismissed. *******