Disposed

S.Parejan, v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC15 Sept 2017HCP/1723/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought a writ to direct prison authorities to consider a leave request for her husband to attend his daughter's marriage. The court disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to examine the pending representation within three days.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; the first respondent was directed to examine and dispose of the pending representation within three days.

S.Parejan, Vs the State Rep by Its — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.09.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.1723 of 2017

¶7

S.Parejan .... Petitioner vs. 1.State by: The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central Prison Campus, Coimbatore-641 018 2.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Coimbatore ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the application of the petitioner dated 27.08.2017 and grant leave for a period of one month to the petitioner's husband Mr.Shakul Hameed, son of Ibrahim, Ct.No.18818, Central Prison, Coimbatore, to make arrangements for his daughter's marriage.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Pugalenthi For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, Addl.P.P.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

(Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM,J.)

¶11

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 27.08.2017.

¶12

2.It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is the wife of a life convict, by name, M.Shakul Hameed, son of Ibrahim (Ct.No.18818), Central Prison, Coimbatore. Further it is averred in the petition that for the past 22 years, he is in custody and so far he has not taken any leave. The marriage of

¶13

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

¶14

the daughter of the petitioner and life convict is going to be conducted very shortly. Under such circumstances, for getting leave, a representation has been given to the first respondent on 27.08.2017. But, the first respondent has not at all considered the same. Under such circumstances, the present petition has been filed.

¶15

3.Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran, learned Additional Public

¶16

Prosecutor has taken notice for the respondents.

¶17

4.It is seen from the records that a representation has been given to the first respondent on 20.07.2017 for getting leave mentioned therein. But, so far the first respondent has not at all considered the same.

¶18

5.Considering the fact that already a representation has been given and the same is pending on the file of the first respondent, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.

¶19

In fine, the first respondent is directed to look into the representation dated 27.08.2017 and dispose of the same within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above observation, this habeas corpus petition is disposed of. Sd/Asst.Registrar (CO) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central Prison Campus, Coimbatore-641 018 2.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Coimbatore 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras + 1 cc to Mr.P.Pugalenthi Advocate,SR.67815 H.C.P.No.1723 of 2017 RSI(CO) NR 09/10/2017

¶20

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

S.Parejan, v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Parejan, v. the State Rep by Its

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

Ramesh, M/a 23 Years, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Ramesh, Aged 23 Yrs Vs State of Tamilnadu

G.Arumugam, 67 Yrs, Vs the Secretray to Governement

Dhesamma, Aged 44 Years, Vs the State Rep. by

Nishoba, 23 Years Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

J.Kengammal, Vs the State of Tamilnadu