Madras High Court Administrative and Public Law Criminal Procedure and Evidence

After Wife Files Undertaking, Madras HC Grants Life Convict 21 Days’ Ordinary Leave With Escort

Muruganv.The Deputy Inspector of General of Prisons,

By LawLens Team · Editorial and Research TeamDecided November 02, 2026Published 3 November 2026 at 4:24 pm IST2 min read

The LawLens card for this judgment

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner should be granted 21 days’ ordinary leave notwithstanding the State’s stated concerns about his mental health and conduct.

The court held

The Court granted Murugan 21 days’ ordinary leave with escort, subject to the specified conditions, including reporting back at the end of the leave period and compliance with the Jail Manual and Rule 26.

It also directed

It directed the State to bear the escort charges and made no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

01Facts

Murugan, a life-convict prisoner confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, sought to quash the first respondent’s order dated 27 August 2026 and obtain 21 days’ ordinary leave, following an application made on 16 June 2026.

p. 1

The State’s concern was that he suffered from serious mental depression, behaved violently, and had no family member willing to take responsibility for his conduct.

¶ 3 · p. 6

After the Court’s direction, the petitioner’s wife filed an undertaking affidavit.

¶ 2 · p. 2

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner should be granted 21 days’ ordinary leave notwithstanding the State’s stated concerns about his mental health and conduct.

¶ 3–4 · pp. 6–7

ii.If leave is granted, whether it should be subject to escort and conditions imposed under the applicable prison rules.

¶ 4 · pp. 6–7

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution of India provides the High Court’s jurisdiction to grant writ relief.

The Court also referred to Rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, directing the prison authorities to impose the other conditions contemplated by that Rule during the leave period.

¶ 4 · p. 7

The judgment cites no precedent or further legal test governing ordinary leave.

04Reasoning

The Court considered the State’s apprehension concerning the petitioner’s mental health, conduct, and supervision alongside the undertaking affidavit filed by his wife.

¶ 2–3 · p. 2, 6

In light of that undertaking, it granted leave with escort and imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to return when the leave ended, comply with the Jail Manual, use the leave only for its stated purpose, and meet any further conditions imposed under Rule 26.

¶ 4 · pp. 6–7

The State was directed to bear the escort charges.

¶ 4 · p. 7