Madras HC Grants POCSO Convict 21 Days’ Leave Despite Victim Living In Same Village, Orders Twice-Daily Police Reporting

In brief

The question

1. Whether the rejection of the prisoner’s application for 21 days’ ordinary leave should be set aside in light of the circumstances advanced by the petitioner and the stated risk to the victim.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and granted Perumal 21 days’ ordinary leave without escort.

It also directed

During leave, he must report to the third respondent police station daily at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., return to prison at the end of the leave, comply with the Jail Manual, use the leave only for the stated purpose, and meet any additional conditions imposed under Rule 26.

The petitioner must provide the necessary documents and a copy of the order to the prison authorities.

If the victim or her family makes a complaint concerning the prisoner during the leave period, the third respondent must take appropriate action.

No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The petitioner sought 21 days’ ordinary leave for her husband, Perumal, who was serving a 20-year sentence for an offence under Section 363 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act; his appeal was pending before the High Court.

p. 2

She cited the prisoner’s good conduct, the dilapidated condition of the family home, and his mother’s need for eye treatment.

p. 2

The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons rejected the request because the Probation Officer and jurisdictional police did not recommend leave, and because the victim and her family might be threatened; the victim lived in the same village.

pp. 2–3

The petitioner challenged that rejection by writ petition.

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the rejection of the prisoner’s application for 21 days’ ordinary leave should be set aside in light of the circumstances advanced by the petitioner and the stated risk to the victim.

pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether ordinary leave could be granted subject to conditions addressing the concern that the victim and her family resided in the same village.

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

The Court referred to Rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, directing the prison authorities to impose any further conditions contemplated by that Rule.

p. 5

The order does not identify any other statute, precedent, or broader legal test governing ordinary leave.

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 363

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 6

04Reasoning

The Court took account of the prisoner’s good conduct and period of detention, the family’s circumstances, and the medical needs of his mother.

p. 4

It acknowledged that the victim’s residence in the same village was the principal concern, but considered the petitioner’s submission that the prisoner would not disturb or approach the victim or her family.

pp. 4–5

It set aside the rejection and addressed the identified risk through reporting requirements and a direction for police action if a complaint was received from the victim or her family.

pp. 4–5