A life convict prisoner is ineligible for ordinary leave if the mandatory one-year interval between leaves prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, has not been completed.

Writ Petition (Criminal) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and directing the respondents to grant ordinary leave for 30 days without escort to the detenue, Elumalai S/o.Munusamy aged about 46 years bearing convict No.8269 (PID No.308724) confined at Central Prison-I, Puzhal.

ORDER

(The Order of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan, J)

This petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking directions to the respondents, to grant ordinary leave for 30 days to her husband, who is the life convict prisoner namely Elumalai S/o.Munusamy aged about 46 years bearing convict No.8269 (PID No.308724) confined at Central Prison-I, Puzhal.

2 According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is the wife of the detenue, who is the life convict prisoner and the petitioner, being a lady is struggling to meet her daily needs and the presence of the detenue is necessary.

3 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the life convict prisoner made representation on 02.04.2025 seeking leave. The life convict prisoner previously availed leave from 24.12.2024 to 12.01.2025. As per the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 , Volume 3, Rule No.22(3), one year should be completed between two ordinary leaves. Further in this case, appeal filed by the detenue is also pending.

4 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and perused the materials on record.

5 It is seen that the detenue previously availed leave from from 24.12.2024 to 12.01.2025 and he made present representation on 02.04.2025 seeking ordinary leave for 30 days. As per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 , one year period should be completed within two ordinary leave and hence on the date of making representation seeking leave, the detenue was not eligible to grant leave. Furthermore, the conviction recorded against the detenue has not attained finality and the appeal against his conviction is pending. Therefore the detenue and the petitioner have efficacious remedy before the Court, where the appeal against conviction is pending.

6 In view of the above reasons, we are not inclined to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stands closed.