AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenging the order dated 07.07.2026 bearing No.688/THAU1/2026 passed by the first respondent and consequently, seeking a direction to the respondents to grant ordinary leave for 28 days without escort to the Convict Prisoner, Sivakumar, aged 42 years, S/o.Marappan, bearing PID No.185358, confined at Central Prison, Salem, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced in S.C.No.30 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Namakkal, for the following offences:
| S.No. | Provision under which convicted | Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Section 449 r/w 34 IPC | Seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo six months imprisonment. |
| 2 | Section 307 r/w 34 IPC | Seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one year imprisonment. |
| 3 | Section 302 (2 counts) r/w 34 IPC | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment (2 counts). |
| The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently. | ||
The petitioner has undergone the actual imprisonment for a period of seven years, one month, and twenty two days. Accordingly, the petitioner has sought ordinary leave for 28 days under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, for the purpose of supervising and participating in the renovation work of their house. Though the Probation Officer has given a report about the good conduct of the petitioner, since the Inspector of Police, Namagiripet Police Station expressed apprehension to the life of the petitioner, the first respondent rejected the request made by the petitioner. Hence, he seeks quashment of the impugned order by granting ordinary leave to the petitioner.
Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire materials.
Though the respondent/police filed a report stating that there is a likelihood of apprehension to the life of the petitioner, absolutely there is no evidence on record to substantiate the same and the said report has been filed in a routine and mechanical manner.
It is also seen from the records that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for more than seven years and he seeks ordinary leave solely for the purpose of undertaking essential repair and renovation work on his house, which he is legitimately entitled to as per rules. When the Probation Officer himself has affirmed the fact that the house of the petitioner needs such repair and renovation, the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner merely on the ground of apprehension expressed by the police cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Prisoners are entitled to ordinary leave subject to certain statutory conditions. As a matter of right, the same cannot be denied without any proper reasons.
In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated dated 07.07.2026 bearing No.688/THAU1/2026 passed by the first respondent is set aside and the convict prisoner viz. Sivakumar, aged 42 years, S/o.Marappan, bearing PID No.185358, confined at the Central Prison, Salem, is granted twenty eight days ordinary leave from 15.09.2026 to 12.10.2026 with minimum escort. The expenses of the escort shall be borne by the petitioner. Further, the convict prisoner, during this leave period, shall appear and sign before the Inspector of Police, Rasipuram Police Sation, Namakkal District, everyday at 10.00 a.m. After expiry of the ordinary leave, the convict prisoner shall surrender before the prison authorities on or before 10.00 a.m. on 13.10.2026. The convict prisoner shall utilize the leave only for the purpose, for which, it has been granted and shall not indulge in any other activities. With the above directions, this writ petition (criminal) stands allowed.