JUDGMENT Goverdhan Bardhar, J. - Heard. 2. The defects pointed out by the Office are waived at this stage. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 07.01.2019, learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jalore has taken cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(D) IPC and Section 3/4, 5(i)/6 of POCSO Act and ordered for issuing warrant of arrest against the accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset that he has limited prayer that issuance of arrest warrant for securing presence of the petitioner may be converted to bailable warrant while resorting to sub-sec.(2) of Sec.70 CrPC. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on judgment in the case of Vivek @ Pappu Jat & another Vs State of Rajasthan, 2018 11 CrLR 259. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that looking to seriousness of the offence, the trial court has passed the order for summoning presence of the accused-petitioner by warrant of arrest. 6. Perused the impugned order passed by the trial court. 7. In the case of Vivek @ Pappu Jat (supra), the coordinate Bench of this Court observed as follows: "6. Upon perusal of impugned order, it is abundantly clear that the investigating agency has submitted negative final report in the matter and it was only the learned Trial Court which has, prima facie, notice some incriminating evidence against the petitoners for taking cognizance and as consequence of which, it has issued process for ensuring attendance of the accusedpetitioners. The legal position is no more res integra that when a Court is summoning an individual as accused, in normal circumstances, either the summons are to be issued at the first instance or bailable warrant and if the accused is not responding to bailable warrant then Court may resort to issuing non bailable warrant. Moreover, sub-section (2) of Section 70 CrPC prescribes for cancellation of non-bailable warrant. 7. Supreme Court in Inder Mohan s case (supra) has considered this aspect threadbare and has opined that in normal course of events, at the first instance, Court is not expected to issue arrest warrant. The said view is also subsequently followed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Israk & ors. Vs The State of Rajasthan and Balveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan." 8. The said view is also subsequently followed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Israk & ors. Vs The State of Rajasthan and Balveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan." 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion and deem it proper to exercise its revisional jurisdiction in granting limited indulgence to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is partly allowed and the order dated 07.01.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jalore in FIR No.03/2017, to the extent of issuing nonbailable warrant against the accused-petitioner Vijesh Kumar @ Vijay Purohit s/o Amara Ram is modified and converted into bailable warrants.