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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65335

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
S.Kalavathi – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore Prisons Campus Coimbatore – Respondent
W.P.Crl.No.1276 of 2025 | W.P.M.P.Crl.613 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.P.Pugalenthi
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor

The court established that prior punishment should not prevent the grant of ordinary leave to a convict as per applicable rules.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to challenge the order refusing leave for a convict. Facts of the Case: The petitioner argued that the convict had already faced punishment for previous conduct and should not be penalized again.

Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the argument, determining that denying leave was improper.

Issues: The court framed whether the punishment imposed should affect the right to ordinary leave.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that once punishment is served, it should not preclude entitlement to leave as per the rules, thus supporting the petitioner’s claim.

Result: The impugned order dated 03.01.2025 is quashed and the convict is granted 28 days ordinary leave.

Table of Content
1. right to ordinary leave despite past punishment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's reasoning on applicability of prison rules. (Para 5)
3. grant of leave and quashing of the impugned order. (Para 6 , 7)

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Pugalenthi For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated

03.01.2025 of the first respondent, rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 26.08.2025, seeking ordinary leave for the convict prisoner Sivakumar, S/o.Sathish (PID No.37760) on the ground that the petitioner has already suffered punishment for prison offence, therefore, he is entitled to ordinary leave.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already been punished for the alleged prison offence of bringing one ear stud, while returning to the prison. The ear stud was removed even before entering into the prison, for that purpose, he has sustained punishment from getting his privilege.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that since the petitioner's conduct was not good as per Rule 21(k) of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, hence, his representation was rejected.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

5. It is the admitted case that the petitioner while availing previous leave and returning the prison stated to have worn the ear stud which has been removed even before entering into the prison, thereafter, he was also imposed with some punishment for such conduct by cutting out his privilege, therefore, once again, the same cannot be used against the accused to prevent the leave that is otherwise provided in the Rules. Such view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to 28 days leave without escort and we are inclined to grant 28 days ordinary leave to the convict prisoner without escort.

6. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 03.01.2025 is quashed and the convict prisoner Sivakumar, S/o.Sathish, PID No.37760 is granted 28 days ordinary leave from 13.11.2025 to 11.12.2025 with a condition that the life convict shall report before the jurisdictional police i.e., Papparapatti Police Station, Krishnagiri District daily at 10.30 a.m. After expiry of the ordinary leave, the life convict shall surrender before the on 11.12.2025 at 05.30pm. The life convict shall utilize the leave only for the purpose for which it has been granted and shall not indulge in any other activities.

7. With the above direction, this writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

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