S. No. 14 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 689/2026 CrLM (1566/2026) ADNAN MANZOOR ANTOO …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Ms. Bushra Zargar, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K TH.S.H.O P/S SOPORE ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 31.08.2026 1. The short grievance projected by the petitioner is that he had moved an application before the Trial Court seeking permission to travel abroad in connection with his employment. The Trial Court, vide the order impugned, rejected the application on the ground that it suffered from material deficiencies going to the root of the matter. Firstly, the petitioner had not disclosed the exact period for which he intended to remain abroad in connection with his employment. Secondly, the particulars of the employer and the nature of employment were stated to be missing. The Trial Court, therefore, observed that, in the absence of these material particulars, it lacked the necessary factual foundation for the exercise of its discretion. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the aforesaid deficiencies had already been duly addressed and, in support of his submission, has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-III as well as Annexure-VI. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the Trial Court has proceeded to pass the order impugned without due consideration of the material placed before it. Annexure-III is stated to be the job offer letter, whereas Annexure-VI is the passport of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the order impugned reflects a mechanical approach on the part of the Trial Court and that the petitioner's prayer has not received due and proper consideration. 4. Upon consideration of the submissions made and examination of the record, it transpires that the Trial Court proceeded on the premise that the application suffered from material deficiencies. The petitioner, however, has been able to point out that the material particulars in question were already supported by documents placed before the Trial Court, which appear to have escaped its consideration. The Trial Court has, therefore, failed to exercise its jurisdiction upon due consideration of the material available on record. There is, thus, substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed. The order impugned passed by the Trial Court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of the petitioner's application, in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the prosecution. 6. Disposed of accordingly, along with the connected CrLM(s). (SANJAY PARIHAR) JUDGE Srinagar 31.08.2026 “Imtiyaz” Imtiyaz Ul Gani I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 01.09.2026 17:11