Kerala High Court
Nabeesa vs State Of Kerala on 29 April, 2025
W.P.(Crl) No.511 of 2025 1 2025:KER:33324
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 9TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 511 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
NABEESA
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O ABDUL LATHEEF,
ONANDU HOUSE, NEAR ULUWAR JUMA MASJID,
KASARGOD, PIN - 671321
BY ADVS.
P.K.VARGHESE
M.T.SAMEER
DHANESH V.MADHAVAN
JERRY MATHEW
DEVIKA K.R.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
THE MINISTRY OF HOME DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS
AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
JAIL HEADQUARTERS, POOJAPPURA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON AND CORRECTIONAL HOME,
PUZHATHI, KANNUR, PIN - 670005
ADV SRI. M.C ASHI, PP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl) No.511 of 2025 2 2025:KER:33324
EASWARAN S., J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(Crl.) No.511 of 2025
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of April, 2025
JUDGMENT
The present Writ Petition (Criminal) is filed seeking the
benefit of Rule 400(ii) of the Kerala Prisons & Correctional Services
(Management) Rules, 2014 ('the Rules', for short) and for a
consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to grant emergency
leave to Sri. Abdul Latheef (Convict No.209/21) who is undergoing
imprisonment at Central Prison and Correctional Home, Kannur on
the ground that as per Ext.P1, he is required to attend the marriage
of a close relative on 30.4.2025.
2. When the above writ petition came up for consideration on
22.4.2025, this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to
obtain instructions as regards the genuineness of Ext.P1 invitation
card and thereafter posted the matter to 25.4.2025 and later to
today i.e., on 29.4.2025.
3. Heard Sri.P.K. Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri. M.C. Ashi, the learned Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the State.
W.P.(Crl) No.511 of 2025 3 2025:KER:33324
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted
that though the cause projected under Ext.P1 is genuine, the
convict is not entitled to the benefit of Rule 400(ii) of the Rules.
According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the marriage, which is
stated to be solemnised on 30.4.2025 is not with regard to a close
relative coming within the definition of Rule 400(ii) of the Rules.
The marriage dated 30.4.2025 is of the petitioner's maternal
uncle's son. Therefore, it is stated that there cannot be any
direction to the respondents to grant the extra ordinary leave to
Sri. Abdul Latheef (Convict No.209/21).
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner though does not dispute the aforesaid facts would submit
that nothing prevents this Court from considering the fact that the
marriage stated to happen is that of his family member which will
come within the purview of close relatives.
6. On a consideration of the rival submissions raised across
the Bar, this Court finds that there is considerable force in the
submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor. Leave as a matter of
fact cannot be claimed as a right and is dependent on the
conditions prescribed under Rule 400(ii) of the Rules. It is within
the domain of the State to prescribe conditions stipulating the
W.P.(Crl) No.511 of 2025 4 2025:KER:33324
leave for convicts. In the present case, it is beyond dispute that
Sri. Abdul Latheef (Convict No.209/21) is undergoing
imprisonment in S.C. No.176 of 2017 for the offences under Section
302 and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
Unlike the case of an ordinary leave for which the convict is entitled
to under Rule 397 of the Rules, the grant of extra ordinary leave
under Rule 400(ii) of the Rules cannot be insisted as a matter of
right. Therefore, considering the facts in totality, this Court is of
the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for issuance
of writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the prayer sought for in the writ
petition is declined. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
NS
W.P.(Crl) No.511 of 2025 5 2025:KER:33324
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 511/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE WEDDING INVITATION CARD
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(CRL)
1252/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED
22.11.2024
