2026:HHC:8054 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.108 of 2026 Date of Decision: 20.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ Jarmanjit Kaur …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, challenge has been laid to order dated 17.01.2026 passed by learned Special Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh in Cr.MP (Regd.) No.3376 of 2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for release of his passport came to be rejected. 2. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the petition vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and as such, no interference is called for. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:8054 3. Careful perusal of impugned order dated 17.01.2026, clearly reveals that no cogent and convincing reason ever came to be placed on record for release of the passport. The petitioner merely stated before the Court below that the passport, being a legal document, is required to be released to her. Once it is not in dispute that petitioner is an accused in FIR No.17/2025, dated 22.01.2025 registered under Sections 21, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act and session trial under NDPS Act is pending consideration before the learned Special Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to disclose specific and justifiable reasons in the application seeking release of the passport. Since application for release of passport nowhere disclose any reason/purpose for travelling abroad and there is no mention with regard to dates of journey and place of stay in abroad, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the court below, while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for release of passport. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, while disposing of the present petition, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file fresh application before the learned Court below, clearly setting out the reasons for seeking release of passport as well as purpose of travelling abroad. Needless to say, application, if filed by the petitioner, shall be decided by the Court below within a period of two 3 2026:HHC:8054 weeks from the date of its filing. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 5. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 20, 2026 (shankar)