Past single default on leave surrender does not bar future ordinary leave for long-term convicts with family needs.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent made in No.297/Utha.2/2026 (RO.MDU/297/2026.G2) dated 23.03.2026 and for a direction to the respondents to grant 28 days ordinary leave without escort to the petitioner's husband, who is presently serving sentence at Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. The petitioner's husband, who is a life convict and is undergoing sentence at Central Prison, Palayamkottai. He has already undergone incarceration for more than 14 years. A representation was made by the petitioner seeking for ordinary leave without escort, since the convict's mother is suffering from serious health ailment and she was bed ridden and she required physical and emotional support of the convict.

4. The second respondent through the impugned proceedings rejected the representation made by the petitioner on the ground that on the earlier occasion, the emergency leave was granted to the convict on 12.05.2015 for three days and the convict did not surrender on 16.05.2015 and subsequently, his whereabouts were ascertained and he was arrested on 12.06.2015. As a result, an FIR came to be registered against the convict. In view of the same, by quoting Rule 21(i) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules , 1982, the representation made by the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

5. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 16.04.2026, this Court took into consideration the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents and passed the following order:

“Counter-affidavit has been filed by the third respondent and the copy has also been served on the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. On going through the counter-affidavit, it is seen that earlier, the emergency leave was granted for six days to the petitioner's husband on 12.05.2015 and the petitioner's husband ought to have returned to the prison on 16.05.2015. However, he failed to surrender and therefore, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.392 of 2015 for the offence under Section 224 of IPC. It is stated that the petitioner's husband underwent trial and was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, by judgment dated 04.07.2017. This reason has been put against the convict for not granting 28 days ordinary leave sought for by the petitioner. We want to go through the judgment that was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur before taking a final decision in this case. Hence, the copy of the same shall be produced before this Court on the next date of hearing.

3. Registry is directed to post this case on 21.04.2026.”

6. Pursuant to the above order, the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur in STC.No.132 of 2016 dated 16.02.2021 was produced before this Court. It is seen that the convict was convicted for the offence under Section 224 of IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone. Thus, for the earlier default committed by the convict, he has been prosecuted and he has been punished.

7. In our considered view, the convict did not report back to the Jail on 16.05.2015 and for that, he has already suffered punishment. On going through the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, it is seen that the convict was working in a sweet stall and he had not indulged in the commission of any other offence. Even otherwise subsequently the convict was granted emergency leave and he had complied with the condition and reported back to the Jail. Hence, one default on the part of the convict should not disentitle him from getting any ordinary leave