Reserved on:17.11.2025 Delivered on:18.12.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (Criminal) No.63 of 2024 Anoop Agrawal and Another ......Petitioners Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Ors. …..Respondents Presence Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioners.

Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA, for state.

Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for Respondent No.3.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present writ petition arises out of FIR No. 551 of 2023 registered at Police Station Kashipur for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 384, 504 and 506 IPC. The Petitioners challenge two orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, namely, the order dated 17.11.2023 issuing a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the subsequent order dated 03.01.2024 initiating attachment under Section 83 of the Code.

2. As per the FIR lodged by Respondent No. 3, the Petitioners had allegedly threatened him for money and, on 22.10.2023, arrived at Ramleela Maidan along with several persons armed with weapons, assaulted him and fired a gunshot which narrowly missed. Respondent No. 3 claims to have suffered injuries but states that he did not lodge a complaint immediately.

3. The Petitioners deny the allegations and assert that they have been falsely implicated due to political enmity. They rely on an RTI reply from the local police, asserting that on 22.10.2023, no incident was recorded in the General Diary at the said venue, and that police personnel were deployed there for routine duty.

4. After registration of the FIR, the Petitioners filed an interim anticipatory bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which came to be rejected on 03.11.2023. Prior thereto, on 31.10.2023, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had issued a Non-Bailable Warrant against them. The Petitioners contend that the pendency of their anticipatory bail application was not brought to the notice of the Magistrate.

5. The Petitioners thereafter approached this Court by filing an anticipatory bail Application No. 1030 of 2023. While the application was pending, the Investigating Officer moved an application seeking a proclamation under Section 82of the Code, which was allowed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 17.11.2023.

6. The Petitioners filed an application dated 14.12.2023 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking recall of the Non-Bailable Warrant and the proclamation, placing reliance on the RTI reply and asserting that they had not absconded. As per the record, the learned Magistrate adjourned the matter for a status report but did not decide the recall application.

7. On 03.01.2024, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded to pass the order initiating attachment proceedings under Section 83 of the Code. The Petitioners contend that this was done without considering their recall application and without recording satisfaction that they were evading arrest.

8. It also appears from the record that earlier Writ Petition No. 1666 of 2023, filed by the Petitioners in respect of the same FIR seeking quashing and protection, had been dismissed on 21.12.2023 on the ground that the Petitioners had not disclosed their criminal history. The present writ petition is a subsequent proceeding concerning the process issued during the investigation of the same FIR.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Investigating Officer suppressed relevant facts, including the pendency of anticipatory bail proceedings and the RTI material, while seeking proclamation. It is urged that the Petitioners were pursuing legal remedies and could not be treated as absconding.

10. It is submitted that the order dated 17.11.2023, issuing a proclamation, was passed mechanically and without recording satisfaction that the conditions of Section 82 were fulfilled. Learned counsel contends that the Petitioners had appeared before courts and were represented by counsel, and therefore, there was