UKHC010131982026 2026:UHC:7085 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRJR/8/2026 Vipin Nayyar --Revisionist Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Vipin Nayyar, revisionist, in person. Mr. N.S. Kanyal and Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. There is a delay of 77 days in filing the present Criminal Jail Revision. 3. Learned State Counsel has orally opposed the application seeking condonation of delay. 4. Having regard to the fact that the revisionist is presently in custody and considering the grounds stated in the delay condonation application, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay. Accordingly, the delay condonation application, being I.A. No.1 of 2026, is allowed and the delay of 77 days in filing the present Criminal Jail Revision is hereby condoned. 5. Heard the revisionist in person, who has joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing, as well as learned State Counsel. The record has been perused. 6. The present revision has been UKHC010131982026 2026:UHC:7085 preferred against the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No.15 of 2025, whereby the application moved by the prosecution for pre-poning the date fixed for framing of charge from 13.02.2026 to 06.02.2026 was allowed. 7. Having considered the submissions of the revisionist and learned State Counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The mere preponement of the date fixed for framing of charge, by itself, does not occasion any prejudice to the revisionist, particularly when no substantive right of the revisionist has been shown to have been adversely affected thereby. The revisionist has also failed to demonstrate that the impugned order has resulted in any failure of justice or has caused any actual prejudice to his defence. 8. In the absence of any manifest illegality, irregularity or prejudice occasioned to the revisionist, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the present Criminal Jail Revision is dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 11.08.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dd db7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB98 7446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.08.11 16:59:31 +05'30'