Preet Pal Singh Dhillon And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 2644 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Preet Pal Singh Dhillon And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 2 April, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                                         COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures



                                  WPMS No.1096 of 2023
                                  Preet Pal Singh Dhillon and another                           ............Petitioners
                                                             Vs.
                                  State of Uttarakhand and another                              ..........Respondents

                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Kirti Sharan Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned D.A.G. with Ms. Swati Verma, learned B.H. for the State.

Delay Condonation Application (IA No.3 of 2026)

3. A delay condonation application has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. There is a delay of 2 days in filing the review application.

5. Since there is no opposition from side of the counsel for the State to the said delay condonation application, the delay of 2 days in filing the review application is condoned.

6. Accordingly delay condonation application stands allowed.

Review Application (MCC No.2 of 2026)

7. By means of the present review application the learned counsel for the petitioner wants to review the judgment dated 09.12.2025, Preet Pal Singh and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another.

8. It is contended by the review applicant/petitioner that while passing the judgment, the orders of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1995) 6 SCC 99 and Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1998) 7 SCC 654 were not been followed.

10. This cannot be a ground for reviewing the judgment and order dated 09.12.2025, passed by this Court as the said

orders of the Apex Court have never been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners during course of the hearing. By filing the review application, the review applicant/petitioner wants to reargue and reopen the case, which is not permissible under review jurisdiction. There is no apparent error of law on the face of record, which could be corrected without going deep in the matter.

11. The review cannot be filed in disguise of an appeal, therefore, this review application stands rejected.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 02.04.2026 SK