Madras High Court
Suraj Raj vs The State Represented By Its on 5 March, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
W.P.No.3789 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.03.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
W.P.No.3789 of 2024
Suraj Raj ...Petitioner/son of the detenu
vs.
The State represented by its,
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Deputy Inspector of General of Prison,
Trichy Range,
Trichy Central Prison,
Trichy-620 020.
3.The Superintendent,
Trichy Central Prison,
Trichy-620 020. ...Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3789 of 2024
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned order bearing No.106/Mu.Vu./2024, dated 31.01.2024, passed
by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the
respondents to grant ordinary leave for 30 days without escort to the detenue,
Indirajith, S/o.Ramalingam, aged about 56 years, Convict No.21390, confined at
Central Prison, Trichy.
For Petitioner : Dr.S.Manoharan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.C.Aravind
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)
On the ground that the present petitioner's father is required for arranging
funds to pay educational fees, a representation was given to the respondents
seeking for grant of ordinary leave, which was rejected on the ground that a
Special Leave Petition in (Crl.)No.492 of 2022 is pending before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as against the judgment and conviction of the petitioner's father
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by placing reliance on Rule 2 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence
Rules.
2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced a copy of the
Probationary Officer's Report dated 23.02.2024, which recommends for release
of the petitioner's father on Ordinary Leave. However, as against the judgment
of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the petitioner's father
preferred an appeal in (Crl.)No.492 of 2022, which is pending before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the respondents are not in a position to
grant Ordinary leave in view of an embargo under Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu
Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
also submitted that the petitioner's father is otherwise eligible for 28 days of
ordinary leave.
3. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made on either
sides. The reason assigned by the petitioner for grant of Ordinary Leave to the
his father is that his presence required for arranging funds for meeting
educational expenses. Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules,
1982 provides grounds for grant of Ordinary Leave to the prisoner and one such
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ground is to enable the prisoner to make arrangements for the livelihood of the
family and for the settlement of life after release which includes settling family
disputes like partition etc.,. The Probation Officer has also favourably
recommended the case of the petitioner's father for grant of Ordinary Leave.
4. Insofar as the objection raised by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor that since an appeal against the judgment of the conviction and
sentence is pending before this Court which has an embargo is concerned, a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, in which, one of us is a party, in the case of Latha
vs State represented by Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and another in
W.P.(MD)No.6398 of 2023 dated 29.09.2023 had already taken a view that
pendency of an appeal before the appellate Court will not be an embargo for
consideration of any request for grant of Ordinary Leave.
5. In view of the ratio laid down in Latha's case, we do not find any
justification on the part of the respondents to raise the pendency of an appeal as
an embargo.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. In the light of the above observations and findings, there shall a
direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to forthwith release the petitioner's father
viz., Indirajith, S/o.Ramalingam, aged about 56 years, on Ordinary Leave for a
period of 28 days, without escort, on the following conditions.
(i) Respondents are directed to release the Convict
Prisoner viz., Indirajith, S/o.Ramalingam, aged about 56 years,
on Ordinary Leave for a period of 28 days i.e., from 08.03.2024
to 05.04.2024.
(ii) The Convict Prisoner shall be released on 08.03.2024
at 10.00 am and surrender before the Superintendent of Prison,
Trichy Central Prison, Trichy-620 020, on 05.04.2024 at 05.30
p.m.
(iii) The Convict Prisoner is directed to report before the
Kumbakonam West Police Station Thanjavur District, twice a
week i.e., on every Monday and Thursday at 10.30 a.m, during
the period of leave.
(iv) The Convict Prisoner shall utilize the leave only for the
ground on which it has been granted and shall not indulge in any
other activities.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. With the above directions, the writ petition stands allowed.
(M.S.R.,J.) (S.M.,J.)
05.03.2024
Anu
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
Note: Issue Order copy on .03.2024
To
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Deputy Inspector of General of Prison,
Trichy Range,
Trichy Central Prison,
Trichy-620 020.
3.The Superintendent,
Trichy Central Prison,
Trichy-620 020.
4.The Public Prosecutor
Madras High Court.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J
Anu
05.03.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
