Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 36871
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ
Kokila Devi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Madurai Range, Madurai – Respondent
W.P.Crl.(MD).No.2368 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Narayanan
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Court may grant emergency leave to convict despite pending case, considering sentence served and family medical emergency.
Headnote:The petitioner sought emergency leave for a life convict under Article 226, challenging rejection due to pending case. Relevant facts include convict's father's serious ailment requiring support, convict's over six years served, and prior compliant leave. Court found rejection unreasonable given circumstances. Issue framed as whether emergency leave justified despite pending case. Ratio: Considering sentence served, compliance history, and family medical need, court inclined to grant limited leave overriding rejection. Impugned order set aside; six days emergency leave granted with reporting and surety conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to rejection of emergency leave for convict's family ailment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court weighs sentence served and compliance for leave grant. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. impugned order set aside; limited leave with conditions. (Para 7) |
[Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.]
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent made in No.231/Tha.ku.2/2026 dated 30.01.2026 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant emergency leave for the detenu, who is presently serving sentence at Central Prison, Madurai.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3.The petitioner is the wife of the convict. The detenu is a life convict undergoing sentence at Central Prison, Madurai. The petitioner made a representation on the ground that the detenu's father is suffering from serious ailment and therefore, he requires physical and emotional support of the convict and to take necessary steps to get his father treated.
4. The second respondent through the impugned proceedings dated
30.01.2026 rejected the representation on the ground that there is a pending case against the convict in C.C.No.809 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore.
5. This Court considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.
6. Taking into consideration the reasons assigned to seek for emergency leave and considering the fact that the convict has undergone sentence for more than six years and even on an earlier occasion, he was granted ordinary leave, where he had complied with the conditions, we are inclined to grant six days emergency leave to the convict.
7. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent made in No.231/Tha.ku.2/2026 dated 30.01.2026 is hereby set aside and there shall be a direction to the second respondent to grant six days emergency leave to the convict subject to the condition that he will report before the third respondent daily at 06.00 p.m., during the entire period of emergency leave. Apart from that condition, the convict is permitted to submit the sureties before the Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai, instead of executing the sureties before the Tahsildar and two sureties shall be the family members of the convict. The other conditions imposed by the second respondent shall stand as it is.
