Sureties for prison leave cannot be required to produce property documents; identity documents suffice.

The petitioner’s husband, Saravanan, a life convict imprisoned in Tiruchirappalli Central Prison for an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, sought 21 days’ ordinary leave.

The request was rejected on the ground that he had not completed three years of imprisonment at the relevant time.

During the hearing, the State informed the Court that the prisoner had completed three years of imprisonment on 16 August 2026 and was consequently eligible for ordinary leave.

The State also stated that a fresh application could be submitted.

The Court noted that the police verification report was already available and favourable to the prisoner.

The petitioner also raised practical difficulties concerning the execution and verification of surety bonds before the jurisdictional Tahsildar.

1. Whether the prisoner, having completed three years of imprisonment, was entitled to 21 days’ ordinary leave despite the earlier rejection of his request?

2. Whether the Court could dispense with the requirement of submitting a fresh leave application when the police verification report was already favourable?

3. Whether the jurisdictional Tahsildar could insist upon patta, ownership, or other immovable-property documents from the sureties for accepting the surety bonds?

The Court applied the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1962. Under Rule 26, surety bonds for release on leave are to be executed before the jurisdictional Tahsildar; Rule 25 prescribes Form II for the bond.

The Court relied on the principle stated in the Division Bench decision in W.P.(MD) No.27789 of 2023, order dated 20 December 2023, that Tahsildars acting under Rule 26 cannot insist that sureties own immovable property or produce immovable-property documents.

The Court further directed that Aadhaar cards, ration cards, and self-attested photographs would be sufficient for the relevant surety verification, subject to completion of verification and transmission of the bonds within one week.

The earlier rejection of ordinary leave was justified when made because the prisoner had not yet completed the required three-year period.

However, by the date of hearing, he had completed three years and had therefore become eligible for 21 days’ ordinary leave.

Since the police verification report was already favourable, the Court considered the requirement of filing a fresh application to be a mere procedural formality and dispensed with it.

Balancing the grant of leave with the safety of the victim, the Court imposed conditions requiring the prisoner to report daily at 8:00 p.m. before the fourth respondent, prohibiting him from entering the place where the victim resided, and restraining all contact or interaction with the victim or her relatives.

Applying Rule 26 and the earlier Division Bench ruling, the Court also held that surety verification could not be burdened by requirements relating to property ownership or patta documents.

The first respondent was directed to grant Saravanan 21 days’ ordinary leave without escort, subject to the specified reporting and victim-protection conditions and any other appropriate conditions imposed by the authority.

The jurisdictional Tahsildar was directed not to insist upon patta or other property documents from the sureties; Aadhaar cards, ration cards, and self-attested photographs were to be accepted as sufficient for the purpose.

Verification and transmission of the surety bonds to the Superintendent of Prison were directed to be completed within one week of their submission.