Judgment reserved on:-28.08.2025 Judgment delivered on:-13.11.2025 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.1067 of 2014 Arvind Kumar ………….Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ………..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State. Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. The present C482 application has been filed by the applicant for setting aside the order dated 07.12.2013, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, Pauri-Garhwal in Misc. Criminal Case No.116 of 2013, Arvind Kumar Vs. Mahipal Singh, under Sections 166, 167, 218, 219, 220, 342, 384, 420, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC registered at Police Station Kotdwar, Pauri-Garhwal and judgment and order dated 14.07.2014, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri-Garhwal in Criminal Revision No.46 of 2013, Arvind Kumar Vs. Mahipal Singh. 2. The facts in brief are that the applicant on 11.07.2011 was arrested for offences under Section 420, 468, 470 and 471 of IPC, when son of the applicant was informed about the arrest he reached the concerned police station where he met respondent no.2 who allegedly demanded gratification of around ₹1,50,000/- stating that if he is paid such an amount he will not oppose the bail application of the applicant and also will not press for rejection of bail application. It is further alleged that respondent no.2 threatened the son of the applicant that if he does not meet the demands of respondent no.2 he will also implicate him 1 under N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. The applicant lodged a complaint with the aforesaid allegations in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, Pauri-Garhwal, who after recording the statements of the witnesses dismissed the complaint vide order dated 18.10.2013. Aggrieved by the said order the applicant preferred a revision in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri-Garhwal, who vide order dated 14.07.2014 dismissed the revision thereby upholding the order passed by Trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the courts below have committed grave irregularity and illegality in passing the impugned orders as inspite of the prima facie case against the respondent no.2 the trial has not proceeded against him. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 relying upon his counter affidavit submitted that the applicant was arrested on 11.07.2011 in pursuance of FIR lodged on 01.06.2011 and he was appointed as the Investigating Officer thereon. He further submitted that the investigation was carried on by respondent no.2 with utmost diligence and the allegations leveled against him are false. He further submits that granting of bail was in the ultimate discretion of the judicial officer; therefore respondent no.2 could have not pressurized the applicant or his son to fulfill the alleged illegal gratification. 5. Applicant in his rejoinder affidavit submits that the Investigating Officer i.e., respondent no.2 pressurized the applicant’s son to illegally pay him ₹1,50,000/- and this can also be validated by the fact that subsequently the investigation after the complaint of the applicant, was transferred to some other Investigating Officer. 6. Having heard the rival submission of the contesting parties and after perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that both 2 the courts’ below have passed well reasoned and meticulous orders observing that the allegations against respondent no.2 are only bald statements which have not been substantiated by any evidence. There is no illegality in the judgment and orders impugned. Therefore this Court is not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings of the courts below. 7. Accordingly this C482 application being void of merit is hereby dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 13.11.2025 SK 3