Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1150 (UTT)

JODH SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

CRLR/97/2026 · 2026-03-12

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR No. 97 of 2026 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Ayush Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The instant criminal revision has been moved by the revisionist Jodh Singh against the order passed by the learned District and Session Judge, 1st, Nainital dated 05.02.2026 in SST Case No. 26 of 2018 whereby the application moved by the revisionist for summoning the Editor/Publisher of Amar Ujala as defence witness has been rejected as well as opportunity to lead the defence evidence has been closed. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that the Editor/Publisher of the said newspaper, in fact, is not the material witness and the application moved by the revisionist is completely without any substance. 5. Be that as it may, for substantial justice opportunity is being given to the revisionist to move fresh application with better particulars and if such an application is moved by the revisionist with better particulars, the Trial Court may re-consider the said application on its own merit within a week. 6. Subject to the direction as above, the present revision is disposed of. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 12.03.2026 Parul