Madras High Court
Kanmaniselvi vs The Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 23 October, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
WP.Crl.No.1086 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.Crl.No. 22328 of 2021
Kanmaniselvi ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisions (DIG)
Chennai Range
Prison Head Quarters, Whannels Road
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008
2. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison-1
Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066 .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records No.33800/Tha Ku2/2025
dated 02.06.2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the portion of the leave
granted with condition of two sureies of Rs.500/- each executed before the Tahsildar,
Perambur, Chennai and consequently direct the respondents to grant 28 days
ordinary leave to the petitioner's brother Dhandapani, S/o.Janagiraman, aged 36
years, convict prisoner, CT.No.6046, PID.No.33800, now confined in the Central
Prison-1, Puzhal, Chennai – 66.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Pugalenthi
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 06:19:47 pm )
The petitioner challenges the condition imposed while granting ordinary leave
to her brother one Dhandapani vide order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the second
respondent/Superintendent of Prison and also seeks for a consequential direction for
the respondents to grant 28 days ordinary leave to the petitioner's brother.
2. The petitioner's brother was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court, Chennai punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life
imprisonment by judgment dated 28.09.2015. The petitioner's brother had made an
application for grant of 28 days of ordinary leave for the purpose of renovating the
damaged house and also for the treatment of the petitioner. The second respondent
vide impugned order had granted ordinary leave for 28 days and imposed the
condition execute the bond for Rs.500/- with two sureties each executed before the
Tahsildar, Perambur, Chennai. Challenging such condition imposed by the Prison
Authority, the petitioner has come up with the present petition.
3. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
4. At the outset, we are of the view that the condition imposed by the Prison
Authority is only nominal; what was required is only to execute Rs.500 with two
sureties each before the Tahsildar, Perambur, Chennai, ergo, we are of the view that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 06:19:47 pm )
such condition imposed by the Prison Authority is not onerous. If at all the
petitioner's brother intends to avail leave, necessarily, he has to abide the condition
imposed by the Prison Authority for grant of such leave.
5. Such view of the matter, we do not find any merits in this petition and
accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. No costs.
(N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.)
23.10.2025
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
dhk
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
and
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
dhk
To,
1. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisions (DIG)
Chennai Range
Prison Head Quarters, Whannels Road
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008
2. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison-1
Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066
3.The Public Prosecutor
Madras High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 06:19:47 pm )
23.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 06:19:47 pm )
