[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
P. Veeramakali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P(Crl)MD.No.2684 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.P(Crl)MD.No.2684 of 2025
and
W.PMP(Crl)MD.Nos.635, 636 & 637 of 2025
P. Veeramakali ... Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to
Government, Home (Prison-IV) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director General of Prisons,
Gandhi Irwin Road,
CMDA Building,
2nd Tower, Egmore, Chennai – 8.
3The Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
O/o.The Deputy Inspector General
of Prison and Correctional Services Department,
New Jail Road,
Madurai.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:53 pm )
W.P(Crl)MD.No.2684 of 2025
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records in respect of the impugned order passed by the first
respondent in G.O(D)No.867 dated 09.07.2025 and quash the same
and consequently direct the respondents to release the petitioner's
husband namely Balakrishnan, son of Vellaichami Thevar, life
convict No.4554, now confined at Central Prison, Madurai,
prematurely on medical grounds as certified by the medical board
within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Srikanth
For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order
passed by the first respondent dated 09.07.2025, whereby the request
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:53 pm )
made by the petitioner seeking the premature release of her husband
was rejected.
2.The petitioner’s husband is a convict in S.C.No.10 of
1996 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for eight counts and was
sentenced to undergo eight times of life imprisonment. The
conviction and sentence were confirmed by this Court in Crl.A.No.
328 of 2006 by judgment dated 14.12.2007.
3.Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Criminal
Appeal Nos. 225–227 and 895 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. 429
of 2015, by order dated 09.12.2016, modified the sentence to the
extent that the punishment of eight life imprisonment was reduced to
a single life imprisonment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:53 pm )
4.The convict has now been languishing in prison for the
past 21 years. He is suffering from chronic end-stage renal disease
(Stage 5), anaemia, and systemic hypertension. As a life-saving
measure, he is undergoing haemodialysis (blood purification through
a vascular access incision) twice a week through a left arm fistula,
which is essential for his survival in view of renal failure, at
Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.
5.In the meanwhile, the Government issued G.O.(Ms)No.
430, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 11.08.2023, laying down
guidelines for considering the cases of life convicts for premature
release in commemoration of the 115th Birth Anniversary of
Dr. Perarignar Anna.
6.Based on the said Government Order, the petitioner
submitted a representation seeking the premature release of her
husband in accordance with the report of the Advisory Board and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:53 pm )
relevant Rules. As the same was not considered, the petitioner filed a
Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.30782 of 2023 seeking premature
release of her husband under Rule 341 as well as Rule 632 of the
Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, on the ground that he requires
regular hospital treatment and the assistance of another person to
lead his life.
7.This Court, by order dated 23.02.2024, recorded the
submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that
the Government had taken a policy decision to revisit the earlier
decision and that the matter had been taken up for fresh
consideration, with a report having been called for from the District
Level Committee. In view of the same, the Writ Petition was
disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to await the outcome of the
Government’s decision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:53 pm )
8.Thereafter, the petitioner once again submitted a
representation seeking the premature release of her husband, and the
same is pending consideration.
9.Once again, the petitioner approached this Court in
W.P(MD)No.14218 of 2024, and by order dated 31.07.2024, this
Court directed the authorities concerned to consider the request
made by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of four weeks.
10.However, the request made by the petitioner was
rejected on the ground that the Probation Officer, Paramakudi, in her
report dated 03.03.2020, had stated that the victim had strongly
objected in writing, expressing the possibility of a law and order
problem if the convict was prematurely released. Therefore, the
Probation Officer did not recommend the premature release of the
life convict.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:53 pm )
11.Further, the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, in his
report dated 05.12.2020, did not recommend the premature release
of the life convict based on the report submitted by the
Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, and also in
view of the report of the Advisory Board that the life convict had
been involved in the murder of eight persons, including a 1½-year
old infant. Considering the gravity of the offence, the Advisory
Board was not inclined to recommend the premature release of the
life convict.
12.Consequently, the request made by the petitioner on the
occasion of the 115th Birth Anniversary of Dr. Perarignar Anna was
rejected in G.O(D)No.1481, Home (Prison–IV) Department, dated
07.12.2024. The same was challenged before this Court in
W.P(MD)No.30977 of 2024. By order dated 11.03.2025, this Court
directed the authorities concerned to reconsider the request made by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:53 pm )
the petitioner, taking into account the illness of the convict.
However, the request was again rejected in G.O(D)No.867, Home
(Prison–IV) Department, dated 09.07.2025.
13.The said Government Order was challenged by the
petitioner in W.P(Crl.)(MD) No.703 of 2025. During the pendency
of the Writ Petition, the petitioner sought temporary release of the
convict for a period of eight weeks, and the same was allowed in
W.M.P(Crl.)(MD)No.204 of 2025 by order dated 18.08.2025.
However, after the expiry of the temporary release period, the life
convict did not surrender. Therefore, this Court, by order dated
24.10.2025, disposed of the Writ Petition and directed the
jurisdictional police to secure the life convict and produce him
before the jail authorities.
14.Once again, the petitioner has now challenged the very
same order of rejection in G.O(D) No. 867, Home (Prison–IV)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:53 pm )
Department, dated 09.07.2025, by way of the present Writ Petition.
15.On perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the
respondent and the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, it is revealed that the present Writ
Petition is not maintainable, since the order under challenge in this
Writ Petition had already been challenged in W.P(Crl.)(MD)No.703
of 2025, and the same was disposed of by order dated 24.10.2025.
Therefore, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed in
limine for abuse of process of law and on the ground of suppression
of material facts.
16.That apart, the petitioner’s husband was convicted for
the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 34 (2
counts), 302 read with 149 (6 counts), and 307 read with 149 of the
Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
for each of the six counts under Section 302 read with 149 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:53 pm )
IPC; life imprisonment for each of the two counts under Section 302
read with 34 of the IPC; ten years of rigorous imprisonment for the
offence under Section 307 read with 149 of the IPC; and one year of
rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 of the IPC.
However, the sentence was subsequently modified by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India to a single life imprisonment.
17.The representation was made by the petitioner on the
ground that the convict is undergoing haemodialysis and is suffering
from chronic end-stage renal disease (Stage 5), anaemia, and
systemic hypertension at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.
18.On perusal of the records, it is revealed that the convict
has never been denied medical treatment so far. He has been
undergoing haemodialysis continuously at Government Rajaji
Hospital, Madurai, free of cost, provided by the Government.
Therefore, the claim that his release is essential for his survival
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:53 pm )
cannot be accepted, as he continues to receive uninterrupted and
adequate medical care.
19.The Probation Officer, the District Collector, and the
Advisory Board did not support the premature release of the life
convict on the ground that the family members of the deceased
strongly objected, since the life convict had murdered eight persons,
including a 1½-year old infant. Further, as per the Government
Order, only those prisoners whose health conditions are incurable
are considered for premature release under the medical infirmities
category. Since the prisoner’s health condition is stable under
continuous treatment, he was denied the benefit of premature release
under the said category.
20.In fact, while challenging the very same impugned
order, this Court had disposed of the earlier Writ Petition. However,
the life convict did not surrender before the jail authorities after the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:53 pm )
completion of the interim relief period of eight weeks granted to
him. Hence, the request of the petitioner was rightly rejected after
due consideration and upon obtaining a fresh Medical Board opinion
stating that the prisoner’s condition is stable with continued
haemodialysis and, therefore, does not satisfy the threshold
prescribed for premature release under the medical infirmity
category.
21.In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or
illegality in the order passed by the first respondent in
G.O(D)No. 867, Home (Prison – IV) Department, dated 09.07.2025.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[G.K.I.J.,] & [R.P.J.,]
NCC :Yes/No 18.02.2026
Index :Yes/No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:53 pm )
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to
Government, Home (Prison-IV) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director General of Prisons,
Gandhi Irwin Road,
CMDA Building,
2nd Tower, Egmore,
Chennai – 8.
3The Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
O/o.The Deputy Inspector General
of Prison and Correctional Services Department,
New Jail Road,
Madurai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:53 pm )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
AND
R. POORNIMA, J.
ps
18.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:53 pm )
