JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application challenging an order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani, Nadia, thereby issuing warrant of arrest against the present petitioners. 2. Let a copy of this application be served upon Mr. Imran Ali and Mr. Pratick Bose, learned advocates, who are present in Court and who ordinarily appear on behalf of the State. Their engagement may be regularised in due course by the competent authority of the State. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. Although the First Information Report was lodged in the year 2010 under sections 363, 366 of the Penal Code, subsequently the principal accused got married to the alleged victim. The present petitioners are the relatives of the principal accused. Accordingly, they were told that they did not have to participate in the proceeding anymore. That is why even after being granted bail, they did not appear before the learned trial court since 2012. Both the petitioners have their common residence at Nadia. But due to employment of the petitioner no.1, he and her mother, the petitioner no.2, are staying in Delhi. The petitioners want to join the proceeding at the earliest. 4. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the State and have perused the revision petition. 5. Regardless of the explanation given by the petitioners, it is a fact that warrant of arrest was issued long ago, as far back as in 2015 and the petitioner never thought of approaching any Court of law earlier. 6. In view of the above, I do not find this to be an appropriate case for staying warrant of arrest issued against the present petitioners. However, it shall be open to the petitioners to surrender before the learned court below at the earliest. In the event, the petitioners surrender before the learned court below at the earlierst and prefer an application for bail, their application for bail shall be considered in accordance with law. 7. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of. 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, is to be given to the parties upon usual undertakings.