Allowed

Ramani v. the State by

Madras HC5 Dec 2024WP/36144/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to set aside an order rejecting a leave application for a convict prisoner. Relying on a positive Probation Officer report, the Court granted 21 days of ordinary leave without escort to the prisoner, Prakash @ Desappan, subject to strict reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted 21 days ordinary leave without escort from 10.12.2024 to 30.12.2024 for the convict prisoner with conditions to appear in trial court and report to police.

Ramani Vs the State by — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.36144 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.12.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

W.P.No.36144 of 2024

Ramani

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State represented by, The Secretary to Government,

¶11

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.The Inspector General of Prisons, Chennai Range, Prison Head Quarters, Whannels Road,

¶13

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶14

3.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison-1, Puzhal, Chenna – 600 066. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in the order date on 10.11.2024 bearing no. 405830 / tha.ku.2/2024 passed by respondent no.3 and quashing the same, and directing to grant 21 days ordinary leave by without escort for the Petitioner's son namely Prakash @ Desappan S/o Velankanni aged 32 years, Convict No. 8135, Convict

¶16

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

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

W.P.No.36144 of 2024

¶19

Prisoner, Central prison 1, Puzhal- I.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Nadhiya For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶23

The order of rejection dated 10.11.2024, rejecting the leave application is sought to be set aside in the present Writ Proceedings.

¶24

The reasons stated in the impugned order is that other cases are pending against the petitioner. However, the Probation Officer in his report recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of ordinary leave and stated that the reasons stated in the leave application are found to be correct. The prisoner is in actual prison for about 5 years and 4 months.

¶25

3 . In view of the favourable recommendation of the Probation Officer,

¶26

we are inclined to invoke our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶27

India, thereby granting required leave to the convict prisoner herein.

¶28

At this juncture, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted

¶29

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

¶30

Page 2 of 5

¶31

W.P.No.36144 of 2024

¶32

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

¶33

5 . Accordingly, the convict prisoner viz., Prakash @ Desappan S/o

¶34

Velankanni aged 32 years, Convict No. 8135, Convict Prisoner, Central prison 1, Puzhal- I , is hereby granted ordinary leave for a period of 21 days , without escort commencing from 10.12.2024 on the following conditions.

¶35

(i) Respondents are directed to release the Convict Prisoner viz., Prakash @ Desappan S/o Velankanni aged 32 years, Convict No. 8135, Convict Prisoner, Central prison 1, Puzhal- I on Ordinary Leave for a period of 21 days i.e., from 10.12.2024 to 30.12.2024. The prisoner shall appear before the trial Court in the pending case, which was posted for appearance on 11.12.2024.

¶36

(ii) The Convict Prisoner shall be released on 10.12.2024 at 10.00 am and surrender before the Central Prison-I, Puzhal, Chennai on 30.12.2024 at 05.00 p.m.

¶37

(iii) The Convict Prisoner is directed to report before the Inspector of Police, Ernavoor Police Station, Chennai twice in a week on Monday and Thursday at 11.00 a.m., during the period of leave.

¶38

(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.

¶39

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

¶40

Page 3 of 5

¶41

W.P.No.36144 of 2024

¶42

6 . Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No Costs. Consequently,

¶43

the connected Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, are closed.

¶44

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

¶45

05.12.2024

¶46

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order gd

¶47

¶48

1.The Secretary to Government,

¶49

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶50

2.The Inspector General of Prisons, Chennai Range, Prison Head Quarters, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶51

3.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison-1,

¶52

Puzhal, Chenna – 600 066.

¶53

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶54

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

¶55

Page 4 of 5

¶56

W.P.No.36144 of 2024

¶57

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

W.P.No.36144 of 2024

05.12.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 5

Ramani v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramani v. the State by

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

The Assitant Director Vs Anupam Narain Gupta

Union of India Vs The Registrar

Mohamed Asarudeen Vs the Additional Superintendent of Police

The Union of India Vs R.Jayalakshmi

B.Valarmathi Stella Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Kaleel Ibrahim Vs the State Rep.by