##PAGE1##

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.462 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED :29.01.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

and

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.462 of 2026

and

WMP.Crl.(MD)No.127 of 2026

Dhanalakshmi ... Petitioner

-vs-

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its

1. The Principal Secretary to Government

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

Fort St.George,

Chennai- 600 009

2. The Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services

O/o.Tamil Nadu Prisons Headquarters

Whannels Road,

Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.

3. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons

Trichy Range,

Race Course Road,

Trichy- 620 023

4. The Superintendent of Prison

Central Prison

Trichy- 620 020

____________

Page 1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/01/2026 07:36:53 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.462 of 2026

5. The Inspector of Police

Perambalur Town Police Station

Perambalaur ..Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue

a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the

impugned order passed by the third respondent vide his proceedings in No.RO-

TRY/560/2025 dated 09.11.2025 and quash the same as void and illegal and

consequently grant 28 days ordinary leave without police escort to the

petitioner's husband namely Senthilmurugan,, S/o.Subbiah (convict Prisoner

No.16321,PID No.37119) confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli forthwith

considering the petitioner's representation dated 03.09.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Karthikeyan

For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar

Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.]

The prayer in the petition is to quash the impugned order passed by the

third respondent vide his proceedings in No.RO-TRY/560/2025 dated

09.11.2025 and consequently grant 28 days ordinary leave without police escort

to the petitioner's husband namely Senthilmurugan,, S/o.Subbiah (convict

Prisoner No.16321,PID No.37119) confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli

forthwith considering the petitioner's representation dated 03.09.2025.

____________

Page 2 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/01/2026 07:36:53 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.462 of 2026

2. The petitioner is the wife of the convict. Her husband was

convicted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Perambalur for the offences

under Sections 120(b), 341 and 302 of IPC in S.C.No.4 of 2005 and sentenced

to undergo life imprisonment. Aggrieved over the same, the convict preferred

an appeal before this Court in C.A.No.99 of 2008, wherein the judgment of the

trial Court was confirmed. The husband of the petitioner is languishing in jail

for more than 13 years. While being so, the petitioner being wife of the

convict applied for ordinary leave for her husband, however it was rejected on

the ground that the husband of the petitioner already absconded while he was

granted ordinary leave and thereafter he was secured and confined to the

Central Prison, therefore Rule 21(d)(5) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of

Sentence Rules, 1982 does not provide to grant ordinary leave.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

the the convicted absconded 10 years before and thereafter the convict was

granted emergency leave on twenty eight occasions and ordinary leave on two

occasions and that too by the order of this Court. When an earlier application

was rejected seeking ordinary leave for a period of 40 days which was

challenged before this Court in WP(MD) No.20720 of 2023 and this Court by

____________

Page 3 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/01/2026 07:36:53 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.462 of 2026

an order dated 08.09.2023 considering the fact this Court has granted 40 days

ordinary leave. Once again the petitioner applied for 28 days ordinary leave for

her husband and the same was also rejected by the order dated 02.09.2024,

which was also challenged before this Court in WP(MD) No.21688 of 2024

and this Court by an order dated 11.09.2