Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33361
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, K. K. Ramakrishnan, JJ
Muniyasamy – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons – Respondent
W.P.Crl.(MD).No.2063 of 2026 | W.M.P.Crl.(MD) No.514 of 2026
For the Petitioner: Mr.S.Srikanth
For Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
Past absconding during ordinary leave justifies refusal despite emergency leave compliance.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order refusing ordinary leave to a life convict under relevant prison rules. Facts involved prior grant of leave in 2003 where the convict absconded until 2017, leading to refusal based on past conduct despite compliant emergency leaves. Court found no illegality in the refusal. Issues centered on entitlement to ordinary leave given history of non-compliance. Ratio decidendi upheld denial due to past absconding, distinguishing emergency leave compliance. Writ petition disposed without interference, allowing future emergency representations.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges refusal of ordinary leave to life convict. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments on prior emergency leave compliance. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. past absconding disentitles ordinary leave grant. (Para 3 , 5) |
This petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent made in No.782/Utha.2/2025, dated 19.01.2026 and for a direction to the first and second respondents to grant 28 days of ordinary leave without escort to the petitioner's father, who is a life convict undergoing sentence at Central Prison, Madurai.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. It is seen from the impugned order that the detenue was granted ordinary leave on 31.01.2003 and the detenue went missing till the year 2017. With great difficulty, he was secured and once again confined in prison. Under such circumstances, the first respondent has refused to grant ordinary leave to the detenue, considering his past conduct and the relevant rules in the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual . We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the first respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that emergency leave had been granted to the detenue twice and he had complied with the conditions and returned to prison on time.
5. The ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration, in view of the past conduct of the detenue. It disentitles him from being considered for ordinary leave. Therefore, in case of any emergency, a representation can be made, setting out the grounds and the same will be considered by the first respondent in accordance with law. Except giving this clarity, we do not find any ground to interfere with the proceedings of the first respondent.
