Facts
The petitioner, a convict prisoner at Trichy Central Prison, sought 28 days’ ordinary leave. He was serving a sentence imposed in S.C. No. 107 of 2010, affirmed by the High Court in Crl.A. (MD) No. 310 of 2014, and had served approximately 11 years and 10 months.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons rejected his request because the Probationary Officer had not recommended it, as no report had been received from the jurisdictional police.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2The petitioner stated that his younger brother, Vincent, was willing to accommodate him during leave and that he intended to sell property to settle loans.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3The State confirmed that the brother had offered accommodation.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4Issues
Whether the petitioner should be granted 28 days’ ordinary leave notwithstanding the rejection based on the absence of a jurisdictional police report and the Probationary Officer’s non-recommendation.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2Whether the leave should be subject to reporting and other safeguards.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 5Law Applied
The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, invoked in the petition’s prayer, to consider the challenge to the leave-rejection order.
Source reference: p. 1The judgment does not cite any specific statutory provision, precedent, or particular Jail Manual rule governing ordinary leave.
Source reference: no citationIt directs compliance with conditions prescribed in the Jail Manual as a condition of the leave granted.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 5(v)Reasoning
The Court considered that the petitioner had undergone more than 11 years and 10 months of his sentence and that the earlier difficulty in obtaining a favourable report arose because relatives had not responded to the Probationary Officer’s inquiries.
Source reference: pp. 3–5, paras. 3–5In light of the brother’s undertaking to accommodate the petitioner during leave, the Court granted the requested leave, subject to reporting, conduct, and other safeguards.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 5Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner 28 days’ ordinary leave without escort.
During leave, he must report daily at 6:30 p.m. to the Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station; return to the second respondent when the leave ends; comply with Jail Manual conditions; avoid contact with the victim or the victim’s family; and use the leave only for the stated purpose.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 5(ii)–(vii)The police were directed to take steps to return him to prison if adverse information was reported.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 5No costs were ordered.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 5Original Court PDF
RooseweltvsThe state of tamilnadu rep b
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
