Allowed

Amirthavalli v. the State Represented by Its

Madras HC16 Jul 2024WP/16762/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking ordinary leave for a life convict to manage family livelihood. Invoking Article 226 and relying on a favourable Probation Officer report, the Court granted 21 days of unescorted ordinary leave with strict reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Ordinary leave for 21 days without escort granted to the convict prisoner, commencing from 22.07.2024.

Amirthavalli Vs the State Represented by Its — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.16762 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 16.07.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶7

W.P.No.16762 of 2024

¶8

Amirthavalli

¶9

... Petitioner/wife of the detenue

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The State represented by its The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶12

2.The Superintendent, Puzhal Central Prison-I, Puzhal-600 066.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to grant ordinary leave for 30 days without escort to the detenue, Karthick, S/o.Sukumar, aged about 38 days bearing Convict No.6868 confined at Central Prison, Puzhal.

¶15

Page 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.No.16762 of 2024

¶17

F or Petitioner : Ms.S.Sadhana For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

ORDER

¶19

M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶20

This petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant ordinary leave for a period of 30 days without escort for the petitioner's husband viz., Karthick, S/o.Sukumar, aged about 30 days, bearing Convict No.6868, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal , who was convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each; under Section 449 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment; under Section 404 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and under Section 380 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpattu in S.C.No.229 of 2011 dated 19.12.2017.

¶21

Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.No.16762 of 2024

¶23

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's husband/convict prisoner has undergone 10 years 2 months and 9 days of imprisonment, including the remand set off period and that he seeks for ordinary leave for the petitioner's husband to make arrangements for the livelihood of their family.

¶24

3. The Probation Officer, in his report, has stated that the reasons assigned by the petitioner for grant of leave is true and he has recommended for grant of ordinary leave to the petitioner's husband.

¶25

4. In view of the favourable recommendation of the Probation

¶26

Officer, we are inclined to invoke our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby granting required leave to the convcit prisoner.

¶27

5. At this juncture, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted

¶28

that the convict prisoner is otherwise eligible to avail 21 days of ordinary leave.

¶29

Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.16762 of 2024

¶31

6. Accordingly, the convict prisoner viz., Karthick, S/o.Sukumar,

¶32

aged about 30 days, bearing Convict No.6868, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal , is hereby granted ordinary leave for a period of 21 days, without escort commencing from 22.07.2024 on the following conditions.

¶33

(i) Respondents are directed to release the Convict Prisoner viz., Karthick, S/o.Sukumar, aged about 30 days, on Ordinary Leave for a period of 21 days i.e., from 22.07.2024 to 11.08.2024.

¶34

(ii) The Convict Prisoner shall be released on 22.07.2024 at 10.00 am and surrender before the Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal-I, Chennai, on 11.08.2024 at 05.30 p.m.

¶35

(iii) The Convict Prisoner is directed to report before the Inspector of Police, H8 Tiruvottiyur Police Station Chennai, daily at 05.00 pm, during the period of leave.

¶36

(iv) The Convict Prisoner shall utilize the leave only for the ground on which it has been granted and shall not indulge in any other activities.

¶37

Page 4 of 6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.No.16762 of 2024

¶40

7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No Costs.

¶41

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 16.07.2024

¶42

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No

¶43

Anu

¶44

Note: Issue Order Copy on 19.07.2024

¶45

¶46

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶47

2.The Superintendent, Puzhal Central Prison-I, Puzhal-600 066.

¶48

3.The Inspector of Police, H8 Tiruvottiyur Police Station, Chennai.

¶49

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

W.P.No.16762 of 2024

¶53

M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Anu

W.P.No.16762 of 2024

16.07.2024

Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Amirthavalli v. the State Represented by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amirthavalli 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neethu Jayaprakash Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

P.S.Subitha Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

Indraja Surendaram Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

M.Manibharathi Vs State Rep.by

Kaleel Rahman @ Ragu Vs Inspector of Police

Hussain Sherif Vs Union of India