SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5032

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
JANAKI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO. 121 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.87/2018 | SC NO.265 OF 2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: AJAI BABU, MUHAMMED NASEEF BIN SALIM
For the Respondents: N R SANGEETHA RAJ

Legal restrictions on convict's leave must comply with fair standards.

Headnote:The judgment addresses a Writ Petition under Article 226, seeking to quash a condition in an order affecting a convict's leave. The Court found the restriction arbitrary and unsustainable based on the given facts. The primary issue framed was about the legality of the leave condition. The ratio decidendi highlighted that the condition violates fair legal standards, resulting in a favorable ruling for the petitioner. Thus, the court quashed the condition, allowing for compliance with other terms of the leave order.

Table of Content
1. writ petition concerning convict's leave condition. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's decision on legality of leave condition. (Para 3)

K.BABU, J.

--------------------------------------

W.P (Crl) No.121 of 2026 ---------------------------------------

Dated this the 30th day of January, 2026 JUDGMENT The prayers in this Writ Petition (Criminal) filed under Article

226 of the Constitution of India are as follows:

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Condition No.2 in Exhibit P1 order dated 03.07.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent, which restricts the release of the petitioner’s son on ordinary leave on the condition that no other convict in the same case should be released on ordinary leave simultaneously, as being arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law;

ii. To dispense with the production of translation of documents in vernacular language.

iii. Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the court may deem fit and cost of the writ petition.”

2. The petitioner is the mother of a convict. The petitioner’s son by name Radhakrishnan, S/o. Balan (Convict No.143/23), is undergoing imprisonment in S.C. No. 265/2018 on the file of the Special Court for the Trial of Offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mannarkkad at the Central Prison and Correctional Home, Thavanoor. The convict has been granted ordinary leave as per Ext.P1 order. It is submitted that due to condition No.2 in Ext.P1 order, the petitioner is not in a position to come out of the prison. As per condition No.2 in Ext.P1 order, no co-convict shall remain out of prison on leave. It is submitted that the other convicts in the same case were also released on emergency leave. The requirement of the petitioner is to attend the marriage of his nephew. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in view of condition No.2 in Ext. P1 order, the convict is unable to enjoy the fruits of the ordinary leave.

3. Having regard to the circumstances brought out, I feel that condition No.2 in Ext. P1 is unsustainable.

The Writ Petition is allowed as follows:

“Condition No.2 in Ext.P1 stands quashed. The competent authority shall release the petitioner as per Ext.P1 order, if he complies with the other conditions in the order.”

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top