After No Adverse Incident During Earlier 28-Day Leave, Madras HC Grants Life Convict Remaining 12 Days’ Leave Without Escort

In brief

The question

Whether the prisoner was entitled to the remaining 12 days of ordinary leave, notwithstanding the respondent’s rejection of the request and the police objection based on criminal cases.

The court held

The Court set aside the first respondent’s order dated 5 October 2026 and allowed the petition, directing the second respondent to grant the prisoner 12 days of ordinary leave without police escort.

It also directed

The prisoner was required to produce the necessary documents, surrender at the end of the leave, report daily to the third respondent at 6:30 p.m., comply with prison conditions, and use the leave only for the purpose for which it was granted.

01Facts

The petitioner sought ordinary leave for her husband, a life convict, to attend to his mother’s ill-health and family needs.

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 5.2, 6.3

The first respondent rejected the request, citing police objections based on 15 criminal cases against him and the absence of emergency hospital treatment for his mother.

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 5.2, 6.3

The prisoner had previously availed 28 days of leave, from 1 to 28 February 2026, pursuant to an earlier court order.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 8, 10

The petitioner contended that he remained eligible for 12 days of leave out of the 40 days sought.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 8, 10

On clarification, the State submitted that only one of the 15 cases remained pending investigation; the other 14 were no longer pending.

p. 3 · ¶ 3

02Issues

i.Whether the prisoner was entitled to the remaining 12 days of ordinary leave, notwithstanding the respondent’s rejection of the request and the police objection based on criminal cases.

pp. 3, 6–7 · ¶ 3, 7–11

ii.Whether the impugned rejection should be set aside and leave granted subject to conditions.

pp. 2, 7–8 · ¶ 1, 11

03Law Applied

The Court’s order does not identify or apply a specific statutory provision, precedent, or detailed legal test governing ordinary leave.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, did not bar leave where a final report had not been filed, but the Court did not expressly decide that argument.

p. 3 · ¶ 4

The Court proceeded on the case-specific basis that the prisoner had availed 28 days of leave and was eligible for the remaining 12 days, while taking account of his conduct and the absence of adverse incidents during the prior leave period.

p. 7 · ¶ 10

04Reasoning

The Court found that the prisoner had already availed 28 days of leave and was eligible for the remaining 12 days.

p. 7 · ¶ 10

It also noted that no untoward or adverse incident had been reported during his prior leave and that his prison conduct was stated to be good.

p. 7 · ¶ 10

After receiving clarification that only one of the 15 cases remained pending investigation, the Court granted the remaining leave; it did not separately explain the legal effect of that pending investigation or determine the Rule 35 argument.

p. 3, 7 · ¶ 3–4, 10–11