1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1080 of 2013 dated 4th April, 2013, whereby the High Court has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “the CrPC”).

3. The Facts in brief are: -

The incident occurred on 1.12.2011 at about 4.00 a.m. PW 4, the complainant had lodged an FIR before the Police Station at Singhana, District Jhunjhunu to the effect that PW 5, the daughter of the complainant, Sonu was abducted by the accused persons namely Deshram, Vikash, Ravi Kumar and Amit Kumar. On the fateful day, PW 5, had gone out of her house, when the appellant along with the other accused persons hatched a conspiracy to forcibly abduct her and in pursuance of the same abducted PW 5.

4. The FIR was registered and after completion of the investigation, the investigating agency had filed a charge-sheet against the accused, Amit Kumar (A1) for the offences under sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code (“the IPC” for short) and Ravi Kumar (A2) and Ajit (A3) for the offences under sections 363, 366A and 120B of the IPC. The trial Court, thereafter, commenced with the trial against A1, A2 and A3 respectively.

5. During the course of trial, the trial Court appreciated the evidence available on record and framed charges against A1 under sections 363, 366 and 376 and under sections 363, 366A and 120B of the IPC against A2. Thereafter, PW4, filed an application before the trial Court under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. for the trial of the appellant along with the other accused persons for having been involved in the commission of the offence.

6. The trial Court placing reliance on the evidence produced in the course of the trial has come to the conclusion that the Court is satisfied that the appellant has committed an offence for which the appellant can be tried along with the other accused persons and therefore had taken cognizance for the offences under sections 363, 366A, 120B and 376(2)(g) of the IPC against the appellant herein and were summoned through an issuance of a non-bailable warrant.

7. Being aggrieved by the issuance of the nonbailable warrant, the appellant filed an application before the trial Court for converting the non-bailable warrant into bailable warrant. The trial Court, by its order dated 4.3.13 rejected the application of the appellant.

8. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the appellant had filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court after reconsideration confirmed the order of the trial Court.

9. It is the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order passed by the High Court which is called in question by the appellant in this appeal.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court, to seek attendance of the appellant and the other accused persons had issued non-bailable warrants instead of bailable warrants which was not justified.

12. The only question for consideration before us is whether in the circumstances of the case, the attendance of the appellant could have been best secured by issuing a summon simplicitor or a bailable warrant instead of a non-bailable warrant in an application under section 319 of the CrPC.

13. A Perusal of section 319 of the CrPC would clearly indicate that on the objective satisfaction of the Court a person may be ‘arrested’ or ‘summoned’ as the circumstances of the case may require if it appears from the evidence that any such person not being the accused has committed an offence for which such person could be tried together with the already arraigned accused persons. The Court should exercise judicial discretion on a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of a given case and in a manner where proper procedures are followed that are fundamental to t