Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41757

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.Swaminathan, V.Lakshminarayanan, JJ
Kasiyammal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
W.P.(Crl) No.1189 of 2026 | W.P.M.P.(Crl) No.396 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Pandiyan
For the Respondents: R.Muniyapparaj

An application for ordinary leave by a convict cannot be denied based on the pendency of a criminal case if that case has already resulted in an acquittal.

Headnote:The present petition challenges an order rejecting the convict's request for ordinary leave, primarily based on the pendency of a prior criminal case. Upon reviewing, the Court observed that the referenced criminal case had resulted in an acquittal, thereby neutralizing the ground for refusal. The core issue centers on whether the ground cited for denying the convict's application for ordinary leave remains legally valid. The Court held that since the substratum of the denial—the pendency of a criminal case—has ceased to exist due to an acquittal, the rejection order cannot be sustained in law. The writ petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to grant twenty-eight days of ordinary leave to the convict without escort, subject to specific regulatory conditions.

Table of Content
1. factual background concerning the convict's incarceration and the basis for his leave rejection. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the court quashes the rejection order due to a change in circumstances (acquittal) and grants leave with specified conditions. (Para 3 , 4)

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J . )

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner’s son namely, Gunasekaran @ Udayakumar [Convict No.9053 and PID No.35837], son of Ramar, is undergoing life sentence in the second respondent Prison. He has so far spent 9 years 5 months in prison. The convict prisoner wants to come out on ordinary leave for a period of 28 days. His request was rejected by citing the pendency of the case in Crime No.634 of

2015 on the file of the Attur Police Station.

3. It is brought to our notice that this case has ended in an acquittal and therefore, the reason set out in the impugned order dated 08.04.2026 does not survive. In this view of the matter, the impugned order stands quashed.

4. We direct the respondents to grant twenty eight (28) days ordinary leave for the convict without escort.

5. The writ petition is allowed on the following conditions:~

(a) The convict-prisoner, Gunasekaran @ Udhayakumar, S/o.Ramar, [Convict No.9053 and PID No.35837], now detained at Central Prison, Salem, is granted ordinary leave for twenty eight (28) days from 27.05.2026 to

23.06.2026 without escort.

(b) The convict prisoner shall be released from the prison at 05.00 p.m., on 26.05.2026 and he shall return to the prison at 10.00 a.m., on 24.06.2026.

(c) During the said leave period, he shall report before the Inspector of Police, Attur Police Station, Salem District, daily at 07.00 p.m., from

27.05.2026 onwards, without fail.

(d) During the leave period, the convict prisoner shall abide by all the conditions prescribed in the Jail Manual.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41757

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASG.R.Swaminathan, V.Lakshminarayanan, JJKasiyammal – AppellantVersusState – RespondentW.P.(Crl) No.1189 of 2026 | W.P.M.P.(Crl) No.396 of 2026

An application for ordinary leave by a convict cannot be denied based on the pendency of a criminal case if that case has already resulted in an acquittal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.Swaminathan, V.Lakshminarayanan, JJ
Kasiyammal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
W.P.(Crl) No.1189 of 2026 | W.P.M.P.(Crl) No.396 of 2026