JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application challenging the issuance of warrant of arrest against the present petitioners. 2. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. A First Information Report was lodged against the petitioners under Sections 323, 341, 354 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code in October, 2019. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was submitted in November, 2019 showing the petitioners as absconders. Since there is no provision for anticipatory bail, this Court may be pleased to stay the warrant of arrest so that the petitioners can appear before the learned trial court and pray for bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits as follows. The regular course available to an accused in such a case is to surrender before the learned trial court and pray for bail and the learned trial court shall consider the application for bail in accordance with law. This Hon''ble Court should not interfere with the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioners. 5. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have perused the revision petition. 6. It appears that prima facie case is clearly made out as would be evident from a plain reading of the First Information Report and the chargesheet. Serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioners. 7. The petitioners absconded and that is why the charge-sheet was submitted showing them as absconders. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order issuing warrant of arrest. 9. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed. 10. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for, on usual undertakings.