[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Navamani vs The Home Secretary on 7 January, 2026
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
W.P.Crl.No.112 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.Crl.No.112 of 2025
and
W.P.M.P.Crl.No.61 of 2025
Navamani ... Petitioner
W/o.Kandasamy
Vs.
1. The Home Secretary,
Home Department (Prison),
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Coimbatore Zone,
Coimbatore.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Salem. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying to issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the proceedings in No.640/Thau2/2025 by the 2 nd
respondent dated 03.06.2025 and quash the same and direct the 2nd
respondent to grant 28 days’ ordinary leave without escort to petitioner’s
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 03:26:17 pm )
W.P.Crl.No.112 of 2025
brother Duraisamy, S/o.Palanisamy, PID 20951, who is presently
confined at Central Prison, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Basil
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj,
Additional Public Prosecutor,
assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.,]
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings dated
03.06.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent in No.640/Thau2/2025, whereby
the representation seeking 28 days’ ordinary leave without escort for the
convict prisoner Duraisamy, S/o.Palanisamy, PID 20951, presently
confined in Central Prison, Salem, was rejected, and also for a
consequential direction.
2. According to the petitioner, her brother Duraisamy,
S/o.Palanisamy, was convicted for the offences under Sections 120(b),
147, 364 read with 120(b), 302 read with 149 and 201 read with 302 IPC
and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, in S.C.No.130 of
2012 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 03:26:17 pm )
judgment dated 22.04.2013. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, there
is an urgent necessity to carry out renovation of their residential house,
which is in a highly dilapidated condition, and for the said purpose, the
presence and assistance of her brother, the convict prisoner, is required.
Hence, the convict prisoner made a representation dated 27.12.2024 to
the prison authorities seeking 28 days’ ordinary leave without escort.
However, the second respondent rejected the representation. Hence, the
present petition.
3. The learned counsel submitted that the convict prisoner has
already undergone more than eleven years of imprisonment and has
neither been granted nor availed any kind of parole or leave since the date
of his conviction. He has contended that as per the provisions of Rule 22
of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, the convict
prisoner is eligible to be granted ordinary leave, however, the second
respondent erred in rejecting the representation seeking such leave.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor by referring to the
status report of the third respondent, submitted that subsequent to the
filing of the present petition, a report was called for from the Probation
Officer, Salem, who, after due enquiry, submitted a report stating that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 03:26:17 pm )
reasons assigned in the leave application are genuine and recommended
the grant of leave to the convict prisoner. He further submitted that based
on the said report, the leave application of the convict prisoner would be
considered in accordance with law.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the submissions made
by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the report of the
Probation officer, this Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings
dated 03.06.2025 passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed.
6. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned
proceedings dated 03.06.2025 passed by the second respondent in
No.640/Thau2/2025, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. The second respondent is directed to
reconsider the representation dated 27.12.2024 submitted by the convict
prisoner and pass orders afresh, based on the report submitted by the
Probation Officer, Salem, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as
possible.
(P.V., J.) (M.J.R., J.)
07.01.2026
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Nonspeaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ms
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 03:26:17 pm )
To
1. The Home Secretary,
Home Department (Prison),
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Coimbatore Zone,
Coimbatore.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Salem.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 03:26:17 pm )
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.,
ms
07.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 03:26:17 pm )
