UKHC010134862026 2026:UHC:6653 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR/588/2026 Harish Singh Bisht --Revisionist Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Aditya Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. Nikhil Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Present Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 09.07.2026, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Almora, whereby the application filed by the revisionist under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was dismissed in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that, by means of the said application filed in the appeal, the revisionist had prayed for preservation and production of the CCTV footage of the concerned bank pertaining to 29.03.2022. It is submitted that the said CCTV footage is necessary for the just adjudication of the appeal. It is further submitted that the appellate Court has rejected the application on hyper- technical grounds. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel supported the impugned order and submitted that the appellate Court has rightly rejected the application, as there were material discrepancies in the dates mentioned in the application itself. UKHC010134862026 2026:UHC:6653 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the appellate Court has rejected the application primarily on two grounds. Firstly, there are material inconsistencies in the application itself, inasmuch as different dates of the alleged CCTV footage have been mentioned in the body of the application and in the prayer clause. Secondly, the revisionist had not taken any steps during the trial to seek preservation or production of the CCTV footage. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 31-07-2026 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b0 9c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9B ED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.07.31 17:40:48 +05'30'