Convict Gets 21 Days’ Ordinary Leave Without Escort as Madras HC Cites His Sexagenarian Mother’s Age

The petitioner sought ordinary leave for her son, Velu, a convict confined at Central Prison, Salem, following his conviction under Sections 366 and 376(1) IPC and confirmation of his sentence by the High Court.

She stated that she was a sexagenarian with age-related ailments and needed her son’s assistance and support.

The Deputy Inspector General of Prison rejected the leave request, citing the absence of recommendations from the Probation Officer and Superintendent of Prison.

The State also submitted that the reasons for leave were found false and that no medical evidence substantiated the claimed ailments.

The petitioner challenged the rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court referred to compliance with the conditions prescribed in the Prison Manual as a condition of leave.

The judgment cites no specific statutory provision governing ordinary leave, regulation of the Prison Manual, or judicial precedent; it does not state a broader legal test for entitlement to leave.

The Court considered the petitioner’s status as a sexagenarian and, in view of the facts and circumstances, found it appropriate to set aside the rejection order.

Although the State disputed the stated grounds for leave and pointed to the absence of medical evidence, the Court did not make express findings resolving those objections.

It instead directed that leave be granted for 21 days without escort, subject to reporting, surrender, and other conditions.

The petitioner was required to produce the necessary documents and a copy of the order; Velu was required to surrender on expiry of leave, report daily to the fourth respondent police at 6:30 p.m., comply with the Prison Manual, and use the leave only for its stated purpose.

No costs were ordered.