Madras High Court
Criminal LawAdministrative and Public Law

Uneventful leave of co-accused supported granting ordinary leave despite an alleged safety threat.

S.Kaviyapriya vs The Deputy Inspector General

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: September 28, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Uneventful leave of co-accused supported granting ordinary leave despite an alleged safety threat.. S.Kaviyapriya vs The Deputy Inspector General. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner sought 21 days’ ordinary leave without escort for her maternal grandfather, Chinnu, a life convict, stating that his house was dilapidated and required repairs.

Source reference: p. 2–3

The first respondent rejected the request on the ground that the prisoner faced a threat to his life from the victim’s family. The petitioner also relied on orders granting 21 days’ ordinary leave to five co-accused, during which no untoward incident occurred.

Source reference: p. 2–3

She challenged the rejection by writ petition.

Source reference: p. 2
02

Issues

Whether the prisoner should be granted 21 days’ ordinary leave without escort to attend to repairs required at his dilapidated house.

Source reference: p. 2–3

Whether the stated threat to the prisoner’s life justified refusing leave, given that leave had been granted to co-accused without any reported untoward incident.

Source reference: p. 3–4
03

Law Applied

The order cites no specific statutory provision, Jail Manual rule, or judicial precedent as the basis for granting leave.

Source reference: p. 3–4

The Court’s case-specific reasoning was that the stated purpose for leave, considered alongside the prior grant of leave to co-accused and the absence of untoward incidents during their leave, supported granting leave subject to safeguards and compliance with the Jail Manual.

Source reference: p. 3–4
04

Reasoning

The Court considered the need for repairs at the prisoner’s house and the fact that five co-accused had received 21 days’ ordinary leave, during which no untoward incident occurred.

Source reference: p. 3–4

Against those circumstances, it did not treat the respondents’ stated concern about a threat from the victim’s family as sufficient to deny leave; instead, it granted leave without escort and imposed reporting and conduct conditions.

Source reference: p. 3–4
05

Holding

The Court disposed of the writ petition and directed the respondents to grant Chinnu 21 days’ ordinary leave without escort.

During leave, he must report to the third respondent police at 10:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. daily, return to prison on completion of leave, comply with the Jail Manual, and use the leave only for the stated purpose, refraining from other activities, including communal activities.

Source reference: p. 4–5

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

Source reference: p. 4–5

No costs were ordered.

Source reference: p. 4–5
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

S.KaviyapriyavsThe Deputy Inspector General

Madras High Court · September 28, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment