Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 30788
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, K.K.RAMKRISHNAN, JJ
Ponnudurai – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Inspector General of Prison – Respondent
W.P.Crl.(MD).No.1454 of 2026
For Petitioner: Mr.SMA.Jinnah
For Respondents: Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Life convict barred from ordinary leave due to prior prolonged absconding; emergency leave granted with reporting conditions.
Headnote:The petition challenges rejection of ordinary leave for a life convict under Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, citing prior absconding for 1385 days after 2015 leave. Facts involve over 20 years served, past leaves granted, and ailing mother needing support. Court finds emergency leave appropriate over ordinary leave due to absconding history. Issue framed as entitlement to ordinary leave despite rule bar for absconders. Ratio: Prior prolonged absconding disqualifies ordinary leave; emergency leave permissible with strict conditions like daily reporting and family sureties. Court grants six days emergency leave with conditions; petition disposed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges rejection of ordinary leave for life convict brother. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prior absconding bars ordinary leave; emergency allowed. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. petitioner seeks time with ailing mother. (Para 5) |
| 4. grants 6-day emergency leave with strict conditions. (Para 6) |
[Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.]
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent made in No.908/utha.2/2025 dated 25.02.2026 and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to grant thirty days ordinary leave to the detenu, who is the brother of the petitioner and is presently serving sentence at Palayamkottai Central Prison.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his brother is a life convict serving sentence at Palayamkottai Central Prison. Further the case of the petitioner is that the detenu has already served sentence for more than 20 years and he has also been granted ordinary leave and emergency leave in the past. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.12.2025 seeking for ordinary leave for the detenu on the ground that the mother is ailing and she requires physical and emotional support. The same came to be rejected by the first respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 25.02.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the detenu is not entitled for grant of ordinary leave since on an earlier occasion, the ordinary leave was granted to him in the year 2015 and the detenu went missing for nearly 1385 days and he was able to be secured only in the year 2018. In view of the same, the relevant Rules under the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, provides a bar for the grant of ordinary leave for those convicts, who abscond after such leave is granted.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the detenu at the best can only avail emergency leave.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detenu has already undergone sentence for more than 16 years and he wants to spend some time with the ailing mother.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the objections raised on the side of the respondents, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to grant six days emergency leave to the detenu with a condition that the detenu shall report before the fourth respondent daily at 06.00 p.m., during the entire emergency leave period. Apart from that condition, the detenu is permitted to execute the sureties before the Superintendent of Prison, Central Jail, Palayamkottai, instead of executing the sureties before the Tahsildar and two sureties shall be the family members of the detenu. The other conditions imposed by the first respondent shall stand as it is.
