Disposed

A.Annesha Banu v. the State Represented by Its

Madras HC8 Jul 2019HCP/118/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Habeas Corpus petition, the High Court directed respondents to grant an Ordinary Leave of 30 days to a convict incarcerated for over two decades to attend to his 11-month-old child. The court relied on Suspension of Sentence Rules.

What did the court decide?

Direced respondents to grant Ordinary Leave of 30 days to the convict, releasing him on 22.07.2019 and restraining him to return by 20.08.2019.

A.Annesha Banu Vs the State Represented by Its — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 08..07..2019

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶4

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION NO.118 OF 2019

¶5

A.Annesha Banu ... Petitioner/ Wife of the Detenue
-Versus-
The State Rep. by its
1.The Director General of Prison,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore.
2.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Kovai. .. Respondents

¶6

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to grant leave for 30 days to the detenu - Abuthahir (convict No.10681), son of Yakub, now, confined at Central Prison, Kovai.

¶7

For Petitioner : Dr.S.Manoharan For Respondents : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, APP for RR1 and 2

¶8

ORDER

¶9

[Order of the court was made by Justice M.M.SUNDRESH]

¶10

The petitioner is the wife of the convict - Abuthahir. Seeking Ordinary Leave to the convict for 30 days to attend to his child, who is aged 11 months, the present petition has been filed.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on a conjoint reading of Rules 20 and 22 of The Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, there is no bar for considering the

¶12

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

¶13

request made. The convict is under incarceration for more than two decades. The foundation facts are not in dispute on the need for leave. The sentence imposed under The Arms Act had already been served and completed by the convict. Interpreting the above said position, the Apex Court has held that in such a case, convict will have to be treated for the major offence for which he had served the sentence, and, therefore, he cannot be disqualified for the offence under the Arms Act.

¶14

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in view of the Rule 24, the request of the detenu cannot be considered.

¶15

We find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A combined reading of Rules 20 and 22 of the said Rules coupled with the judgement of the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. P.Veera Bhaarathi, 2019 SCC Online 324 : 2019 (2) Scale 225 will certainly entitle the detenue to be considered for Ordinary Leave. In any case, the Executive Power of the Union of India stands delegated in favour of the State Government. Admittedly, the detenue has undergone sentence imposed under the Arms Act. Therefore, in law, he has to be treated as a life convict for offence committed under section 302 of IPC. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to direct the respondents to grant ordinary leave to the convict, who has been under incarceration for more than two decades, for 30 days commencing from 22.07.2019 subject to the usual conditions that can be imposed by the respondents. The convict shall be released from the prison at 10.00 a.m. on 22.07.2019 and that the convict shall return back to the prison at 05.00 p.m. on 20.08.2019. The convict shall be accompanied by adequate escorts.

¶16

In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed of with the above directions.

¶17

The Registry is directed to list this matter on 22.08.2019 for reporting compliance.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

kmk

¶23

¶24

1.The Director General of Prison, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶25

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

¶26

2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kovai.

¶27

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶28

Copy To:

¶29

The Section Officer, Criminal Section (For listing the case on 22/08/2019), High Court, Madras.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.S.Manoharan, Advocate, S.R.No.56976
H.C.P.No.118 of 2019
PD(CO)
RRS(16/07/2019)

¶31

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

A.Annesha Banu v. the State Represented by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Annesha Banu v. the State Represented by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parthiban, Aged 29 Years Vs State by

S.Kavitha, Aged 22 Years, Vs the State Rep . by

U.Indira Vs the State Rep. by

A.Abdulmannan Vs Stste of Tamilnadu

Najeena Vs the Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu

K.Noorjahan Vs the State Represented by Its