JUDGMENT : The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 09.12.2015 by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued. He has also challenged the orders dated 19.05.2016 and 10.08.2016 by which processes under section 82/83 Cr.P.C have been issued. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s name has transpired on the alleged statement of the co-accused and therefore the investigating officer was required to follow the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in “Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another” reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 . 3. The aforesaid plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. The petitioner has been made an accused for offences under section 25(1-b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act. Whether the prosecution’s case as set-up against the petitioner would sustain or not is a question for trial. Finding sufficient material against the petitioner once the prayer for non-bailable warrant of arrest made by the investigating officer has been allowed by the court, the petitioner was required to avail of the remedy as available to him in law, however, it appears that even six months after the non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against him he did not seek anticipatory bail/bail and therefore the processes under section 82/83 Cr.P.C were issued against him. May be, the orders dated 19.05.2016 and 10.08.2016 are not technically perfect, however, in the aforesaid facts I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, Cr.M.P No. 773 of 2017 is dismissed. 4. Interim order dated 29.06.2017 stands vacated. 5. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX.