Madras High Court
S.Karumeniammal vs The Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 16 September, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.5749 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.09.2022
CORAM
The Honourable Mrs. Justice J.NISHA BANU
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.5749 of 2022
S.Karumeniammal ... Petitioner
Vs
The State represented by its
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Madurai Range,
Madurai.
2.The Superintendent
Central Prison
Palayamkottai 627 007. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned order No.371/Vu.Tha2/2022 dated
01.02.2022 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to grant leave for one month without
escort to the detenu Palani, S/o.Sankarapandi, aged about 47 years, life
convict prisoner, bearing convict No.4296 detained at Central Prison,
Palayamkottai.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.5749 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Narayanan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order
dated 01.02.2022 passed by the first respondent rejecting the request made
by the petitioner seeking for the ordinary leave of her son, who is
undergoing life imprisonment for an offence committed under Section 302
IPC in Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
2.The case of the petitioner is that her son was convicted and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner is said to be 81
years old and she has some health ailments. Since the petitioner is in the
evening of her life, she wants to be with her son for sometime. Hence, the
petitioner made a representation to the respondents requesting for granting
ordinary leave to her son. Since the same was rejected, the present writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.5749 of 2022
petition has been filed before this Court.
3.The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The main
objection that has been stated in the counter affidavit is that the
recommendation of the Superintendent of Prison and the report of the
Probation Officer was considered and thereafter a decision was taken not to
grant leave to the detenu. Even on an earlier occasion, a similar request was
made and it was rejected and it was also confirmed by this Court in W.P.
(MD) No.1667 of 2022, by order dated 21.02.2022.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the report
of the Superintendent of Prisons and the Probation Officer is not in favour
of the detenu. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted
that the detenu was having intimacy with yet another woman and if he is let
out, there is a chance of some communal tension. That apart, there was yet
another murder case against the detenu. In view of the same, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no ground to interfere
with the impugned order passed by the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.5749 of 2022
5.In the considered view of this Court, Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu
Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules')
deals with grounds on which ordinary leave can be granted to a prisoner. In
the present case, the mother of the detenu is aged about 81 years and she is
facing health related ailments. That apart, she has not met her son for more
than four years and therefore, she wants to be with the detenu for sometime.
This reason will fall within the scope of Rule 20 of the Rules. The detenu
does not face any disqualification as provided under Rule 21 of the Rules.
Insofar as the other case of murder, which was pointed by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, the detenu has been acquitted from the said
case in S.C.No.84 of 2007 through judgment dated 10.10.2014. There has
been no adverse reports against the detenu and the mere apprehension that
has been raised by the Superintendent of Prisons and the Probation Officer
cannot be a ground to reject the request made for granting ordinary leave to
the detenu. This Court is convinced with the request made by the petitioner
and hence, leave can be granted to the detenu by imposing stringent
conditions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.5749 of 2022
6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order of the first
respondent dated 01.02.2022 is hereby set aside. There shall be a direction
to the first respondent to grant ordinary leave to the detenu for a period of
20 days, ie., from 21.09.2022 at 10.30 a.m. to 10.10.2022 upto 5.30 p.m.,
without escort, subject to the following conditions:
(a) The detenu shall stay at Harikesavanallur Village,
Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District and he shall not leave the place during
the period of his stay with his mother;
(b) The detenu shall report before the Mukkoodal Police Station,
Tirunelveli District, daily at 5.30 p.m. during the entire period of ordinary
leave; and
(c) The detenu shall surrender before the second respondent on
10.10.2022 by 5.30 p.m.
7. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
(J.N.B.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.)
16.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
RR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.5749 of 2022
To
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Madurai Range,
Madurai.
2.The Superintendent
Central Prison
Palayamkottai 627 007.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Mukkoodal Police Station,
Tirunelveli District
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.5749 of 2022
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
RR
W.P.(MD)No.5749 of 2022
16.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
