Savithri v. The State
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Taking note of the fact that the prisoner is in actual imprisonment and his conduct inside the prison is satisfactory, we are inclined to modify the order impugned to the extent that the ordinary leave granted to the prisoner for 21 days is without…
Judgment
W.P.No.39508 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :07.01.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN W.P.No.39508 of 2024 Savithri... PetitionerVs.
The State represented by, The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
The Superintendent, Puzhal Central Prison -I, Puzhal.... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records connected with impugned order in proceedings No 438749/ Tha. Ku 2 / 2024 dated 26.11.2024 passed by the Second respondent and quash the same and directing the respondents to grant ordinary leave for 21 days without escort to the detenue Rajasekar S/o Anthonidas aged about 49 years bearing Convict No 7941 confined at central Prison -I Puzhal. For Petitioner: Ms.S.SadhanaFor Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public ProsecutorPage 1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.39508 of 2024ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)The rejection of the leave application by Superintendent of Prison in proceedings No 438749/ Tha. Ku 2 / 2024 dated 26.11.2024, is sought to be assailed in the present writ proceedings. 2. The prisoner is in actual imprisonment for about 6 years and 5 months. There is no adverse conduct noticed against the prisoner inside the prison by the prison authorities. The Probation Officer also recommended the case of the prisoner for grant of ordinary leave for 21 days. The reason stated in the order impugned is that, the leave granted with escort.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the family of the prisoner is not in a position to meet out the expenditure for escort. There is no adverse conduct noticed against the prisoner inside the prison by the prison authorities.
Operative part
Taking note of the fact that the prisoner is in actual imprisonment and his conduct inside the prison is satisfactory, we are inclined to modify the order impugned to the extent that the ordinary leave granted to the prisoner for 21 days is without escort. Page 2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.39508 of 20245. At this juncture, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the convict prisoner herein is eligible to avail only 21 days of ordinary leave.6. Accordingly, the convict prisoner viz., Rajasekar S/o Anthonidas aged about 49 years bearing Convict No 7941 confined at central Prison -I Puzhal., is hereby granted ordinary leave for a period of 21 days, without escort commencing from 11.01.2025 on the following conditions.
(i) Respondents are directed to release the Convict Prisoner viz., Rajasekar S/o Anthonidas aged about 49 years bearing Convict No 7941 confined at central Prison -I Puzhal on Ordinary Leave for a period of 21 days i.e., from 11.01.2025 to 31.01.2025.
(ii) The Convict Prisoner shall be released on 11.01.2025 at 10.00 am and surrender before the Central Prison-I, Puzhal on 31.01.2025 at 05.00 p.m.
(iii) The Convict Prisoner is directed to report before the Inspector of Police, K2 Ayanavaram Police Station, Chennai twice in a week i.e, 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. Page 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.39508 of 20247. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, are closed.[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.] 07.01.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking ordergdTo1.The State represented by, The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.2.The Superintendent, Puzhal Central Prison -I, Puzhal. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Page 4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.39508 of 2024S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.ANDM.JOTHIRAMAN, J.gdW.P.No.39508 of 202407.01.2025Page 5 of 5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.