AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]
Challenging the order dated 29.07.2026, passed by the second respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of 28 days ordinary leave without escort to his brother, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that his brother is a convict prisoner and he is in incarceration in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai. It is the further case of the petitioner that his brother is in incarceration for more than 10 years. Since the petitioner has to renovate his house, which is in dilapidated condition, he requires the presence of his brother / convict prisoner and therefore, he submitted a representation dated 27.07.2026 seeing grant of 28 days ordinary leave without escort to his brother. However, by the impugned order, the respondents have rejected her request.
Per contra, Mr.D.Venkatesh, learned counsel for State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents, submitted that the convict prisoner is in incarceration for the offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.C., He would further submit that as per Rule 21(b) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (in short, “the Rules, 1982”), the convict prisoner, who is undergoing the sentence for the offence under Section 396 I.P.C., is not eligible for grant of leave and therefore, the respondents have rightly rejected the request of the petitioner.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
A perusal of the materials available record shows that the petitioner is the brother of the convict prisoner, who is in incarceration in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai. The petitioner claims that his house is in dilapidated condition and it requires repair works and therefore, he requires the presence of his brother / convict prisoner. However, it is seen that Rule 21(i) of the Rules, 1982), do not permit for grant of leave to the convict prisoners, who are undergoing the sentence for the offence under Section 392 I.P.C. Admittedly, the petitioner is undergoing the sentence for the said offence. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.