Chinnathambi vs The Home Secretary

Court
Madras High Court

W.P.Crl.No.2842 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.Crl.No.2842 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012499362026}
Chinnathambi
..Petitioner(s)
Vs.
1. The Home Secretary,
Home Department (Prison-IV),
Secretariat,
Fort St George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons,
Coimbatore Region,
Central Prison, Coimbatore – 641 018.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore – 641 018.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Kottur Police Station,
Pollachi. Coimbatore District – 642 114.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition (Criminal) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for entire
nd
records pursuant to the rejection order passed by the 2 respondent, vide
No.763/ThaOo1/2026 dated 30.07.2026 with a consequential direction to the
respondents to grant 30 days ordinary leave to petitioner detained at Central
Prison, Coimbatore, without police escort.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

W.P.Crl.No.2842 of 2026
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.B.Karthik
For Respondent(s) : Mr.C.R.Malarvannan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.)
This Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed challenging the order dated
nd
30.07.2026 passed by the 2 respondent in No.763/ThaOo1/2026, rejecting the
petitioner’s request for grant of 30 days ordinary leave and seeking a
consequential direction to the respondents to grant 30 days ordinary leave
without police escort to the petitioner/convict prisoner, who is now detained in
the Central Prison, Coimbatore.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
2.1 The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment
pursuant to the judgment dated 12.04.2017 passed in S.C.No.174 of 2013 on the
file of the Mahila Court, Tiruppur. The said judgment was subsequently
confirmed by this Court, vide judgment dated 30.07.2019 made in Crl.A.No.694
of 2017, and further affirmed by the Apex Court, vide order dated 03.10.2023
made in SLP(Crl.)No.12797 of 2023. Consequently, the petitioner is undergoing
incarceration as a life convict and has been confined in prison for about 10 years
and four months.
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

W.P.Crl.No.2842 of 2026
2.2 Since the petitioner's mother is suffering from various ailments, it has
become necessary to partition the family properties during her lifetime and also
to take care of his aged mother. As the petitioner's personal appearance is
required for the same, he made a representation before the respondents on
24.07.2026, seeking to grant 30 days of ordinary leave. However, the second
respondent, vide impugned order dated 30.07.2026, mechanically rejected the
petitioner's request for grant of ordinary leave, despite the recommendation
made by the Probation Officer, solely based on the report of the jurisdictional
police stating that there is a threat to the petitioner's life. Hence, the petitioner/
convict prisoner has come up with this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:-
3.1 The Probation Officer, who had conducted an enquiry, had given a
favourable report recommending the case of the petitioner/convict prisoner.
However, solely based on the vague report of the jurisdictional police stating
rd
that there is a threat to the life of the petitioner/convict prisoner, the 3
respondent did not recommend the petitioner's case. Subsequently, the second
respondent, vide the impugned order, rejected the petitioner's request for grant
of ordinary leave, which is wholly unsustainable.
3.2 Further, the petitioner/convict prisoner was on bail during the trial and
was also granted suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal and
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

W.P.Crl.No.2842 of 2026
the petitioner/convict prisoner had not misused the said liberty. That apart, the
petitioner/convict prisoner was earlier granted leave with escort for one day, and
he had complied with the conditions imposed by this Court without any default
and returned to prison upon completion of the leave period. Therefore, the
petitioner/convict prisoner is eligible for grant of ordinary leave.
3.3 Further, the second respondent had miserably failed to consider the
health condition of the petitioner's mother and the necessity for the petitioner/
convict prisoner to take care of her and also the fact that the petitioner/convict
prisoner has been confined in prison for about 10 years and four months. Even
otherwise, the petitioner/convict prisoner is entitled to ordinary leave for a
period of 30 days.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents submitted that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's request
nd
for grant of ordinary leave was passed by the 2 respondent solely in the
interest of the petitioner’s own safety in view of the life threat to the petitioner/
convict prisoner, as stated in the report of the jurisdictional police. Further,
though the petitioner had sought 30 days of ordinary leave, he is entitled to only
28 days of ordinary leave.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

W.P.Crl.No.2842 of 2026
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also the
previous conduct of the petitioner/convict prisoner when he was on bail during
the trial and during the subsequent period when he was granted suspension of
sentence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order dated 30.07.2026 passed by
the second respondent is hereby set aside. Consequently, the second respondent
is directed to grant 28 days of ordinary leave without escort to the petitioner/
convict prisoner with the following directions:-
(i) On expiry of the leave, the petitioner/convict prisoner shall surrender
before the prison authorities without fail;
(ii) During the leave period, the petitioner/convict prisoner shall report
before the fourth respondent police daily at 6.30 p.m., without fail, and shall
strictly abide by all the conditions prescribed in the Prison Manual and;
(iii) The petitioner/convict prisoner shall utilize the leave only for the
reason for which it has been granted and shall not partake in any other activities.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Criminal) stands disposed of . No
costs.
(A.D.J.C., J.) (B.K., J.)
28.10.2026
skt
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

W.P.Crl.No.2842 of 2026
To:
1. The Home Secretary,
Home Department (Prison-IV),
Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons,
Coimbatore Region,
Central Prison, Coimbatore – 641 018.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore – 641 018.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Kottur Police Station,
Pollachi. Coimbatore District – 642 114.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

W.P.Crl.No.2842 of 2026
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
B.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
skt
W.P.Crl.No.2842 of 2026
28.10.2026
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )