Allowed

A.Aruna (Aged 30 Years) v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC22 Apr 2016WP/11837/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court allowed the petitioner's request for her husband, a life convict, to avail of three days of parole. The court directed the jail authorities to release him free of cost for medical escort due to the petitioner's cardiac condition requiring surgery, overriding the unmet financial requirement.

What did the court decide?

The detenu was granted three days of parole free of costs; the Commissioner of Police was directed to provide escort.

A.Aruna (Aged 30 Years) Vs The State of Tamil… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.04.2016 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA W.P.No.11837 of 2016

¶2

A.Aruna ... Petitioner

¶3

Vs.

¶4

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government Home Department Secretariat Chennai-600 009.

¶5

2.The Commissioner of Police Chennai City Vepery, Chennai-7. 3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison-1 Puzhal, Chennai-600 066. ... Respondents

¶6

PRAYER :Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide escort enabling the petitioner's husband Mr.Somu alias Somasundaram, son of Subramani, Ct.No.571 now confined in Central Prison I, Puzhal, Chennai600 066, to avail of six days leave already granted by respondent No.3 to him.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Pugalenthi For Respondents: Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi

¶8

Addl. Government Pleader

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The writ petition is filed for issuing a direction to the respondents to provide escort enabling the petitioner's husband Mr.Somu alias Somasundaram, son of Subramani, Ct.No.571 now confined in Central Prison I, Puzhal, Chennai600 066, to avail of six days leave already granted by respondent No.3 to him.

¶11

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent.

¶12

3.Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking parole for six days, he now confines his claim as per the order passed by the third respondent on 26.02.2016 for granting three days Parole. However, his main grievance is that he is not able to pay the charge for escort.

¶13

4.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the counter filed by the respondent, in para-7 it was stated that the petitioner has not paid a sum of Rs.15,070/- as charge for providing security guards during parole period.

¶14

5.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner's husband/detenu, who is a life convict, is now confined in jail and the petitioner is suffering cardiac problem and hence, she has to undergo treatment.

¶15

Considering the exigent circumstances and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been suffering from cardiac problem and she has to undergo surgery, three days time is granted to the detenu/petitioner's husband and he is entitled to escort by free of costs.

¶16

7.In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the following order has been passed:

¶17

[a]The detenu, namely, Somu alias Somasundaram, son of Subramani, Ct.No.571 now confined in Central Prison I, Puzhal, Chennai600 066, is granted parole from 06.30 a.m. on 25.04.2016 to 6.30 p.m. on 27.04.2016.

¶18

[b]The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-I, Puzhal, Chennai-66 is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders releasing the detenu, granting him parole.

¶19

[c]The Jail Authorities are directed to release the detenu, namely, Somu alias Somasundaram, son of Subramani, Ct.No.571, on production of this order.

¶20

[d]It is made clear that the detenu should be brought back to the Central PrisonI, Puzhal, Chennai by 6.30 p.m. on 27.04.2016 without fail.

¶21

[e]The Commissioner of Police/second respondent during the period of parole, shall provide proper escort to the detenu in order to ensure the safety and security of the detenu. They shall also impose suitable conditions to that effect.

¶22

[f]The detenu should also abide by the

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conditions to be imposed by the authorities concerned.

¶24

8.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶25

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kj
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government
Home Department
Secretariat
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Chennai City
Vepery, Chennai-7.
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison-1
Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.
1 cc to Mr.P. Pugalenthi, Advocate Sr.25158
W.P.No.11837 of 2016
LRS(CO)
EU 22.04.2016

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A.Aruna (Aged 30 Years) v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Aruna (Aged 30 Years) v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balamani Vs the Commissioner of Police

R.Suresh Kumar Vs the Sub-Divisional Executive

Mr.Kharthik Gounder Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

A.Aruna (Aged 30 Years) Vs The Commissioner of Police

Gandhi Vs State Rep by

R.Eswaran Vs State Rep. by