Madras HC Grants Life Convict 21 Days’ Leave Without Escort To Help Ailing Father

The petitioner, mother of life convict Saravanan, sought 21 days’ ordinary leave for him to assist his father, Subramani, who was undergoing treatment for prostatomegaly and diabetic retinopathy.

The petitioner’s representation dated 21 April 2026 was rejected; the judgment records that the impugned order relied on the absence of a Probation Officer’s report.

The State submitted that the report indicated the father was not seriously ill, but the Court observed that the report had not been received when it reviewed the impugned order.

The prisoner had been convicted under Section 302 IPC and had completed four years of his sentence.

Rule 20 of the Prison Manual was cited by the Additional Public Prosecutor as making the prisoner eligible for 21 days’ leave.

Rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, was applied to require the prison authorities to impose the prescribed conditions during leave.

The judgment cited no precedent or further legal test governing the grant of leave.

The Court considered the medical material concerning Subramani and found that he was not in good health.

It also noted the discrepancy between the State’s submission about the Probation Officer’s report and the impugned order, which showed that the report had not been received.

In light of the father’s health and the State’s submission regarding 21-day eligibility under Rule 20, the Court directed that leave be granted without escort.

During leave, he must report daily at 10:00 a.m. to the third respondent, return to the prison on expiry of leave, comply with the Jail Manual, and use the leave only for its stated purpose.

The prison authorities were directed to impose the conditions contemplated by Rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.