Madras High Court
S.Subha vs The State on 5 March, 2024
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
2024:MHC:1234
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:05.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.(MD) No.3625 of 2024
S.Subha ... Petitioner/Wife of the detenu
-vs-
The State, represented by
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Madurai Range,
Madurai – 625 001.
2.The Superintendent,
Palayamkottai Prison,
Palayamkottai – 627 007. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned order bearing No.56/Vu/tha.
2/2024, dated 8.1.2024 passed by the first respondent and quash the
same and consequently direct the respondents to grant ordinary leave
for 30 days without escort to the detenue Sree Renga Rajan, son of
Narayanan, aged about 45 years, Convict No.4433, detained at Central
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Prison, Palayamkottai.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Narayanan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi,
Addl.Public Prosecutor
ORDER
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
AND
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
The Writ Petition is filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the
impugned order bearing No.56/Vu/tha.2/2024, dated 8.1.2024 passed
by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct
the respondents to grant ordinary leave for 30 days without escort to
the detenue Sree Renga Rajan, son of Narayanan, aged about 45
years, Convict No.4433, detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The Petitioner is the wife of Life Convict, who was acquitted
for the offence under Section 302 of IPC in S.C.No.178 of 2015, dated
29.4.2016, on thefile of the Sessions Court, Nagercoil.Though the trial
Court acquitted him, on appeal, preferred by the State, the High Court
set aside the judgment of acquittal and convicted him to undergo Life
sentence as per judgment made in Crl.A(MD)No.380 of 2016, dated
21.06.2019. Pursuant to the judgment of conviction, the husband of
the Petitioner was confined to the prison on 27.6.2019. Aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction, an appeal is filed before the Honourable
Apex Court and the same is pending. In the said circumstances, the
Petitioner herein/wife of the convict made a request for ordinary
leave on the ground that she has to prepare herself and the convict
for fertility, which was discontinued after the convict was confined to
prison. Further, she has also based her request for leave to make
preparation for their livelihood.The said request has been declined by
the prison authorities on the ground that Rule 2(4) and 35 of the Tamil
Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 does not provide power for
granting ordinary leave to a convict, whose appeal is pending.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the above said rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence
Rules, 1982 has been interpreted in Latha .vs. The State and
another, by order of this Court made in W.P.No.6398 of 2023,
dated 29.09.2023, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court has
held that the word pending trial, does not include pending appeal. The
expression pending trial used in Rule 35 of the above Rules, 1982,
does not include pending appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court
and also referred to Rule 40 of the above said Rules which empowers
the State Government to exempt any or all of the rules under the
Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 and it directed the
prison authorities to reconsider the request for granting leave. The
learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Full Bench
of this Court in Mrs.Megharaj vs. The State had considered the
conjugal rights of life convict and had recommended the State to
consider the request of deserving convicts to grant ordinary leave to
have progeny.
5.This Court, after considering the judgment cited supra and
the law governing the field, without adverting to the merits of the
request, while confirming the impugned order, as in accordance with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
law, direct the prison authorities to direct the Government to consider
and exercise the power under Rule 40 of the above said Rules, if a
request from the convict or on behalf of the convict is made with
necessary documents for grant of ordinary leave. If such request is
made, the said request may be considered in the light of the
observations made by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in
Latha’s case and Full Bench Judgment in Megharaj case, cited supra.
6.With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed
of. No costs.
[G.J.,J.] [C.K.,J.]
28.02.2024
NCS : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsn
To:
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Madurai Range,
Madurai – 625 001.
2.The Superintendent,
Palayamkottai Prison,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Palayamkottai – 627 007.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
AND
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
vsn
ORDER MADE IN
28.02.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
