Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Anita Sumanth, Sunder Mohan, JJ
S.Anjali – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General of Prisons Chennai Range – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. past abscondance invoked to deny leave eligibility. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. rule 21(i) requires balanced discretionary application. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. grant limited escorted leave, quashing rejection. (Para 7 , 8) |
(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)
The challenge is to order dated 18.07.2025 rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of 40 days ordinary leave to her husband Senthil Kumar S/o Annamalai, (convict prisoner), confined in Central Prison -I, Puzhal, Chennai.
2. The reason assigned for rejection of leave is per Rule 21(i) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (in short ‘Rules’), which prescribes various circumstances for non-eligibility of ordinary leave. Rule 21(i) says that those prisoners who ‘may not report back to the prison after the completion of the leave period’ shall not be eligible for ordinary leave.
3. The apprehension stems from the fact that the convict who had been granted emergency leave between 11.02.2014 and 18.02.2014 had absconded and been secured only on 26.11.2021 after a gap of 7 years. It is based on such abscondance, that the authorities have invoked Rule 21(i), holding him ineligible for grant of ordi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
