Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 30478
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Anand Venkatesh, K.K.Ramkrishnan, JJ
Vanitha – Appellant
Versus
The Home Secretary, Home Department (Prison), Secretariat, Fort. St. George, Chennai - 600 009. – Respondent
W.P.Crl.(MD).No.1771 of 2026|W.M.P.(MD).No.431 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.P.M.Basil
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Court dismissed writ due to discrepancy in leave application genuineness and records.
Headnote:The petition under Article 226 sought to quash prison proceedings rejecting emergency leave for a convict's mother medical ailment due to pending case, requesting 21 days ordinary leave without escort. Court examined representation discrepancies. Found petitioner's document inconsistent with records showing shorter leave request. Issue framed: genuineness of representation for leave. Ratio: court unsatisfied with produced representation differing from official records on leave duration sought. Writ petition dismissed; no interference with rejection order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges rejection of convict's emergency leave petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. discrepancy in leave representation genuineness found. (Para 4) |
| 3. writ petition dismissed; no interference. (Para 5) |
[Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.]
This petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the third respondent made in No.4925/Thaku.2/2026 (CP.PCO/428/2026.R2) dated 16.03.2026 and for a consequential direction to the third respondent to grant 21 days ordinary leave without escort to the petitioner's husband, who is presently confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
2. In the impugned proceedings dated 16.03.2026, it is seen that the petitioner had only sought for the emergency leave on the ground that the detenu's mother is facing serious medical ailment. The same has been rejected on the ground that there is a pending case against the detenu. 3. When the matter came up for hearing on 06.04.2026, this Court directed the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to produce the representation made by the petitioner dated 24.02.2026.
4. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, a copy of the representation dated 24.02.2026 was placed before this Court. On going through the same, it is seen that the petitioner had sought for thirty days leave for the convict. The document that was placed before this Court by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor shows that only 15 days leave was sought for. Hence, we are not satisfied with the genuineness of the representation that was produced before this Court on the side of the petitioner.
5. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings and accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
