1. - The matter comes up for orders on stay application. Both learned counsel for the parties agree that this matter may be heard finally at this stage.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.PC., the prosecutrix has not named the present petitioner. The police after investigation had filed FR so far as the present petitioner is concerned. On 25.5.2006, the prosecutrix has changed her version in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court while accepting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has summoned the petitioner as an additional accused for offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and issued warrant of arrest against him. It is contended that learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered the matter in true perspective and has wrongly summoned the petitioner as additional accused. Therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. In the alternative, it is prayed that co-accused Hari Singh is on bail, therefore, instead of warrant of arrest, accused-petitioner be summoned by issuing bailable warrant.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent have supported the order