When multiple sentences run concurrently, a statutory bar on prison leave relative to specific offenses ceases to apply once the imprisonment period for those particular crimes is completed, even if the convict remains incarcerated for other concurrent convictions.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Statutory Rules governing suspension of sentence - Rule 21(b) - Prison leave - Concurrent sentences - Eligibility criteria - Where a convict is serving multiple sentences concurrently, the statutory bar on grant of ordinary leave pertaining to specific offenses becomes inapplicable once the period of imprisonment designated for those offenses has been fully served, even if the individual remains in custody for other concurrent sentences. (Paras 6, 7, 9 and 10)

Facts of the case:
A life convict filed a petition challenging the rejection of an application for ordinary leave. The authorities had denied the request based on a regulatory prohibition applicable to individuals convicted of specific violent offenses. The petitioner contended that as the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period of imprisonment for the offenses triggering the prohibition had been completed, the denial was legally unsustainable.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner had already undergone the specific duration of punishment associated with the prohibited offenses. Consequently, ruled that the regulatory bar could not be invoked as the conviction currently being served relates to an offense not subject to the restrictive rules.

Issues: Whether a statutory prohibition on prison leave for specified criminal offenses remains binding on a life convict who has already completed the term of imprisonment for those specific offenses within a concurrent sentencing framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Regulatory restrictions on prison leave based on the nature of the conviction are not absolute when the punitive term for the restricted offense has been extinguished; in a concurrent sentencing structure, the completion of the sentence for the barred offense renders the statutory prohibition inapplicable to the remaining period of incarceration.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; relief granted subject to conditions.

ORDER

(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.RO/TRY/188/2026-CA dated 07.04.2026 and for a direction to the first respondent to grant 40 days ordinary leave without police escort to the petitioner, who is presently serving sentence at Central Prison, Trichy.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. The petitioner is a life convict, who is presently serving sentence at Central Prison, Trichy. The petitioner submitted a representation seeking for 40 days ordinary leave on the ground that his father was suffering from heart ailments and he required the physical and emotional support of the petitioner. The representation made by the petitioner came to be rejected by the first respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 07.04.2026 on the ground that the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 394 r/w 397 of IPC and therefore, there is a bar under Rule 21 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 for granting ordinary leave. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the second respondent and the second respondent has reiterated the same ground that has been taken in the impugned order for rejecting the ordinary leave sought for by the petitioner.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

6. The learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) submitted that there is a specific bar under Rule 21 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 for grant of ordinary leave where a convict has been punished for offence under Section 394 r/w 397 of IPC. The learned counsel in order to substantiate his submissions relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.CRL.(MD).No.1752 of 2026 etc., cases dated 28.04.2026 in the case of Rajammal and Others Vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Prisons and Correctional Services Department, Madurai Range, Madurai and Others .

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was convicted for offence under Sections 449, 302 and 394 r/w 397 of IPC and sentence was ordered to run concurrently. Insofar as offence under Section 394 r/w 397 of IPC is concerned, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment. The learned counsel submitted that since the sentence was ordered to run concurrently, seven years imprisonment insofar as offence under Section 394 r/w 397 is concerned, is already completeyu. Therefore, the respondents cannot invoke Rule 21 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982 to deny the ordinary leave sought for by the petitioner.

8. The learned counsel in order to substantiate his submissions relied upon the judgment of this Court in H.C.P.No.1679 of 2019 dated 16.08.2019 and the relevant portion relied upon is extracted hereunder:

“2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor based on the counter affidavit filed submitted that there is a statutory bar as Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, prohibits consideration for granting ordinary leave. He further submitted that the convict had already availed sufficient emergency leave over the ears.

3. We do not find any reason to decline the relief sought for, especially, when the reason for ordinary leave is not in dispute. We have already dealt with the Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Rules in a similar case. The said rule will not stand in the way either for premature release or for granting ordinary leave, when the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 392 read with 397 of IPC is already over. The petitioner has been under incarceration from 23.06.2005 onwards and the sentences will have to run concurrently. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to grant lave for two weeks subject to the usual conditions,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document