HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
MALINI – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS – Respondent
W.P.No.31676 of 2024 and WMP.No.34430 of 2024
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )
The rejection of leave application by the Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal by the Proceeding dated 27.09.2024 is under challenge in the present writ proceedings.
2. The respondent rejected the leave application on the ground that the prisoner was convicted under NDPS Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no bar to consider the leave application submitted by the prisoners convicted under NDPS Act. In view of the ratio laid down by the three judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Dadu alias Tulsidas V. State of Maharastra - (2000) 8 SCC 437.
4. The probation officer in his report stated that the reason stated in the leave application is incorrect. Even while availing leave on earlier occasion, the prisoner has not made an arrangements to perform knee surgery to his wife. That apart, the children of the prisoner are taking care of his wife and therefore there is no need to consider the leave application.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the prisoner has to make arrangements by receiving money from his relatives for providing medical treatment to his wife. She says that in this regard, the prisoner has to go to Bangalore, we are unable to agree, in view of the fact, that while availing earlier leave the prisoner stayed at Chennai and signed before the jurisdictional police station. Therefore, the prisoner need not be allowed to go to Bangalore for mobilising money for providing treatment, there are other ways and means to receive money from his relatives either through bank transfers or otherwise and hence, the said request cannot be considered.
6. Considering the fact, the wife of the prisoner has to undergo knee surgery and the prisoner has to assist his wife. That apart, the prisoner has already in actual imprisonment for about 13years out of 16 years period of conviction. We are inclined to grant ordinary leave to the prisoner for 15 days commencing from 20.11.2024 to 04.12.2024 .
7. Accordingly, the convict prisoner viz., Mr.Ravikumar s/o.Venkatesh @ Kubili Venkatesh aged 63 years convict No.7312 now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is hereby granted ordinary leave for a period of 15 days , without escort commencing from 20.11.2024 on the following conditions.
(i) Respondents are directed to release the Convict Prisoner viz., Mr.Ravikumar s/o.Venkatesh @ Kubili Venkatesh aged 63 years convict No.7312 now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai on Ordinary Leave for a period of 15 days i.e., from 20.11.2024 to 04.12.2024.
(ii) The Convict Prisoner shall be released on 20.11.2024 at 10.00 am and surrender before the Central Prison, Puzhal on 04.12.2024 at 05.30 p.m.
(iii) The Convict Prisoner is directed to report before the Inspector of Police, T9 Pattabiram Police Station, Chennai everyday at 11.00 a.m., during the period of leave.
(iv) The Convict Prisoner shall utilize the leave only for the ground on which it has been granted and shall not indulge in any other activities.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed by quashing the proceedings dated 27.09.2024 passed by the second respondent. No Costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]
14.11.2024
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.