✦ High Court of India · 04 Sep 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 04 Sep 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
04 Sep 2025
Length
1,040 words

W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 04.09.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR andTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARW.P.(Crl.) No.779 of 2025Mrs.R.IndiraW/o.Rajini @ Parthiban... PetitionerVs.1. The State rep. by its The Director General of Prison and Inspector General of Prison Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 0082. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison Vellore Range Thorapadi, Vellore - 23. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison at Vellore Ramset Nagar, Thorapadi, Vellore - 2 ... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to impugned order in No.RO- VLR/653/2025-CAMP (A) dated 29.08.2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and Page Nos.1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 2025consequently direct the respondents to grant 28 days leave without escort to the petitioner's husband namely Rajini @ Parthiban, son of Rathinam, aged 45 years, Life Convict No.4329, PID No.33818, detained at Central Prison, Vellore.For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajendra Kumarfor Mr.M.Mohamed SaifullaFor Respondents:Mr.A.DamodaranAdditional Public ProsecutorORDER[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.]Subject matter of captioned 'Writ Petition' ['WP' for the sake of brevity] is 'Ordinary Leave' for writ petitioner's spouse Rajini @ Parthiban, son of Rathinam, who is now serving life sentence in Vellore Central Prison (Life Convict No.4329, PID No.33818).2. Writ petitioner's spouse shall be referred as 'prison inmate'.Page Nos.2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 20253. Prison inmate was convicted by I Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in IPC S.C No.140 of 2007 and IPC S.C.No.141 of 2007. We are informed that the date of conviction is 21.12.2015 and prison inmate is serving sentence from that day.4. Prison inmate sought 28 days ordinary leave on the ground of serious illness of mother, who requires intervention surgery for compromised cardiac condition and other complications. To be noted, captioned WP was moved by way of lunch motion mentioning that the health of prison inmate's mother has suddenly deteriorated drastically and immediate attention is required.5. Grounds for grant of ordinary leave have been adumberated vide Rule 20 of ''Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982' [hereinafter 'said Rules' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. The power to grant ordinary leave is vested with jurisdictional Deputy Inspector General of Page Nos.3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 2025Prisons (second respondent before us). Second respondent, in and vide an order dated 29.08.2025 bearing reference RO-VLR/653/2025-CAMP(A), granted leave, clearly holding that prison inmate is entitled to ordinary leave. Therefore, we are not dilating more on that aspect of the matter. The only issue is ordinary leave has been granted with escort.6. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that escort is not necessary as it will be mulcting unnecessary expenditure on the prison inmate and his family and there is no threat for the prison inmate. 7. Issue notice.8. Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice for all three respondents and learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed before us Probation Officer's report dated 28.07.2025 and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:Page Nos.4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 2025Page Nos.5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 2025Page Nos.6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 2025Page Nos.7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 20259. A careful perusal of Serial No.9 thereat makes it clear that the Probation Officer has made a field enquiry and come to two conclusions:a) Persons affected vide occurrence which led to prison inmate's conviction are not living in the area concerned;andb) It came to light during enquiry that there is no threat to prison inmate from persons affected vide occurrence which led to his conviction.10.However, the jurisdictional Inspector of Police appears to have sent an undated communication to the Probation Officer, stating that there is a possibility of threat to life of prison inmate by friends and relatives of persons affected vide occurrence which led to conviction of prison inmate.11.Reverting to said Rules, Rule 20 (vii) comes into play and Rule 40 vests the Government with powers to exempt anyone from the provisions of said Rules. This Court has also repeatedly held that said Rules is subordinate legislation , the same having been made in exercise of rule-making power vide Section 432 (5) of erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code and the same cannot curtail or stifle constitutional powers of this Court. Page Nos.8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 202512.In this view of the matter, the other buttressing factors are as follows:i) Earlier a judicial order dated 11.07.2024 has been made in W.P.No.17116 of 2024 granting 28 days ordinary leave from 17.07.2024 to 13.08.2024 to prison inmate and prison inmate has availed the same and has returned safe and promptly. This Court is informed that thereafter in January and April of 2025, prison inmate was granted Emergency Leave for two spells for six days and four days without escort and he returned without any untoward incident. ii) The learned counsel for writ petitioner, on instructions, is confident that prison inmate is safe and there will be no issue much less untoward incident if the prison inmate avails Ordinary Leave without escort.Page Nos.9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 2025iii.While the afore-referred Probation Officer's report dated 28.07.2025 clearly mentions that the conclusions set out supra have been arrived at by the Probation Officer after conducting a field enquiry in the place concerned i.e., after interacting with people in the area, there is no such mention in the undated communication from the jurisdictional Inspector of Police.13. Ergo, the sequitur is captioned WP is disposed of modifying the impugned order to the limited extent of saying that 28 days Ordinary Leave given to the prison inmate Thiru. Rajini @ Parthiban, son of Thiru.Rathinam (Life Convict No.4329, PID No.33818), spouse of writ petitioner will be without escort. In all other aspects i.e., conditions imposed vide impugned order, the same remain undisturbed and the same will operate. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S.,J.)(M.S.K.,J.) 04.09.2025Index : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NogpaUpload forthwithPage Nos.10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 2025M.SUNDAR, J.,andMUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.,gpaTo1. The Director General of Prison and Inspector General of Prison Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 0082. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison Vellore Range Thorapadi, Vellore - 23. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison at Vellore Ramset Nagar, Thorapadi, Vellore - 2W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 202504.09.2025Page Nos.11/11

W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 04.09.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR andTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARW.P.(Crl.) No.779 of 2025Mrs.R.IndiraW/o.Rajini @ Parthiban... PetitionerVs.1. The State rep. by its The Director General of Prison and Inspector General of Prison Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 0082. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison Vellore Range Thorapadi, Vellore - 23. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison at Vellore Ramset Nagar, Thorapadi, Vellore - 2 ... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to impugned order in No.RO- VLR/653/2025-CAMP (A) dated 29.08.2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and Page Nos.1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 2025consequently direct the respondents to grant 28 days leave without escort to the petitioner's husband namely Rajini @ Parthiban, son of Rathinam, aged 45 years, Life Convict No.4329, PID No.33818, detained at Central Prison, Vellore.For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajendra Kumarfor Mr.M.Mohamed SaifullaFor Respondents:Mr.A.DamodaranAdditional Public ProsecutorORDER[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.]Subject matter of captioned 'Writ Petition' ['WP' for the sake of brevity] is 'Ordinary Leave' for writ petitioner's spouse Rajini @ Parthiban, son of Rathinam, who is now serving life sentence in Vellore Central Prison (Life Convict No.4329, PID No.33818).2. Writ petitioner's spouse shall be referred as 'prison inmate'.Page Nos.2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 20253. Prison inmate was convicted by I Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in IPC S.C No.140 of 2007 and IPC S.C.No.141 of 2007. We are informed that the date of conviction is 21.12.2015 and prison inmate is serving sentence from that day.4. Prison inmate sought 28 days ordinary leave on the ground of serious illness of mother, who requires intervention surgery for compromised cardiac condition and other complications. To be noted, captioned WP was moved by way of lunch motion mentioning that the health of prison inmate's mother has suddenly deteriorated drastically and immediate attention is required.5. Grounds for grant of ordinary leave have been adumberated vide Rule 20 of ''Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982' [hereinafter 'said Rules' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. The power to grant ordinary leave is vested with jurisdictional Deputy Inspector General of Page Nos.3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 2025Prisons (second respondent before us). Second respondent, in and vide an order dated 29.08.2025 bearing reference RO-VLR/653/2025-CAMP(A), granted leave, clearly holding that prison inmate is entitled to ordinary leave. Therefore, we are not dilating more on that aspect of the matter. The only issue is ordinary leave has been granted with escort.6. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that escort is not necessary as it will be mulcting unnecessary expenditure on the prison inmate and his family and there is no threat for the prison inmate. 7. Issue notice.8. Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice for all three respondents and learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed before us Probation Officer's report dated 28.07.2025 and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:Page Nos.4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 2025Page Nos.5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 2025Page Nos.6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 2025Page Nos.7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 20259. A careful perusal of Serial No.9 thereat makes it clear that the Probation Officer has made a field enquiry and come to two conclusions:a) Persons affected vide occurrence which led to prison inmate's conviction are not living in the area concerned;andb) It came to light during enquiry that there is no threat to prison inmate from persons affected vide occurrence which led to his conviction.10.However, the jurisdictional Inspector of Police appears to have sent an undated communication to the Probation Officer, stating that there is a possibility of threat to life of prison inmate by friends and relatives of persons affected vide occurrence which led to conviction of prison inmate.11.Reverting to said Rules, Rule 20 (vii) comes into play and Rule 40 vests the Government with powers to exempt anyone from the provisions of said Rules. This Court has also repeatedly held that said Rules is subordinate legislation , the same having been made in exercise of rule-making power vide Section 432 (5) of erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code and the same cannot curtail or stifle constitutional powers of this Court. Page Nos.8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 202512.In this view of the matter, the other buttressing factors are as follows:i) Earlier a judicial order dated 11.07.2024 has been made in W.P.No.17116 of 2024 granting 28 days ordinary leave from 17.07.2024 to 13.08.2024 to prison inmate and prison inmate has availed the same and has returned safe and promptly. This Court is informed that thereafter in January and April of 2025, prison inmate was granted Emergency Leave for two spells for six days and four days without escort and he returned without any untoward incident. ii) The learned counsel for writ petitioner, on instructions, is confident that prison inmate is safe and there will be no issue much less untoward incident if the prison inmate avails Ordinary Leave without escort.Page Nos.9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 2025iii.While the afore-referred Probation Officer's report dated 28.07.2025 clearly mentions that the conclusions set out supra have been arrived at by the Probation Officer after conducting a field enquiry in the place concerned i.e., after interacting with people in the area, there is no such mention in the undated communication from the jurisdictional Inspector of Police.13. Ergo, the sequitur is captioned WP is disposed of modifying the impugned order to the limited extent of saying that 28 days Ordinary Leave given to the prison inmate Thiru. Rajini @ Parthiban, son of Thiru.Rathinam (Life Convict No.4329, PID No.33818), spouse of writ petitioner will be without escort. In all other aspects i.e., conditions imposed vide impugned order, the same remain undisturbed and the same will operate. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S.,J.)(M.S.K.,J.) 04.09.2025Index : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NogpaUpload forthwithPage Nos.10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 2025M.SUNDAR, J.,andMUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.,gpaTo1. The Director General of Prison and Inspector General of Prison Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 0082. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison Vellore Range Thorapadi, Vellore - 23. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison at Vellore Ramset Nagar, Thorapadi, Vellore - 2W.P.(Crl) No.779 of 202504.09.2025Page Nos.11/11

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments