Allowed

Manimegalai v. The Director General of Prison

Madras HC11 Jun 2024WP(MD)/12217/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a wife seeking leave for her convicts husband. Despite pending appeal precluding ordinary leave, the Court exercised discretion to grant six days emergency leave with escort for humanitarian reasons involving family obligations and property redemption.

What did the court decide?

Emergency leave of six days with escort granted to convict husband; petition allowed; direction to prison authorities.

Manimegalai Vs The Director General of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.12217 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.12217 of 2024

Manimegalai

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Director General of Prison, Directorate of the Central Prison, Tamil Nadu Prison, Veanals Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶11

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison Campus, Madurai City-625 016.

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai City-625 016. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)No.12217 of 2024

¶17

order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in No.ROMDU/109/2024-G2, dated 23.05.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents 2 & 3 to grant leave to the petitioner's husband Jeyamari, Son of Murugesan a convict prisoner confined at Madurai Prison forthwith without escort by considering the petitioner's representation.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Vijayaraja

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]

¶22

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 23.05.2024 and consequently, to direct the respondents 2 & 3 to grant leave to the petitioner's husband Jeyamari, S/o.Murugesan.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

¶24

the petitioner's mother-in-law is suffering with serious illness and her two female children are longing to see the face of their father. Further, the father of the convict before his death had pledged some gold ornaments in the Bank to meet the family expenses and the time is riped now to redeem the said gold jewels

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No.12217 of 2024

¶28

within a time frame and as a legal heir, her husband has to come and redeem the golden jewels and thereafter, the properties standing in her father-in-law's name have to be partitioned among the family members based on legal heirship certificate. Therefore, the petitioner has made a representation to the jail authorities on 02.05.2024 and the petitioner's request was rejected by the second respondent. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶29

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that the appeal is pending before this Court and the convict has not completed three years and thereby, he is not eligible for ordinary leave, therefore, her request has been rejected by the second respondent.

¶30

Though it is stated that the pendency of appeal is the ground for

¶31

not granting leave, it will not denude the power of this Court to grant emergency leave.

¶32

Taking into consideration the request of the petitioner and also taking into sympathetic and humanitarian consideration, this Court is inclined to

¶33

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶34

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

¶35

W.P(MD)No.12217 of 2024

¶36

direct the third respondent to grant emergency leave for 6 days to the jail inmate

¶37

with escort.

¶38

In the result,

¶39

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶40

passed by the third respondent, is set aside.

¶41

Jeyamari, Son of Murugesan shall be granted emergency

¶42

leave for a period of six (6) days.

¶43

(iv) He shall report back to the

¶44

Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai on completion of leave period.

¶45

(v) Necessary escort shall be provided to

¶46

accompany the convict prisoners.

¶47

(vi) The escort charges shall be borne by the

¶48

petitioner and if necessary, the same shall be adjusted from the income earned by the convict prisoner during

¶49

the imprisonment period.

¶50

Page 4 of 6

¶51

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

¶52

W.P(MD)No.12217 of 2024

¶53

(vii) The petitioner shall produce all

¶54

necessary documents, along with a copy of this order, before the jail authorities.

¶55

(viii) During the leave period, the convict

¶56

prisoner shall abide by all the conditions prescribed in the jail manual.

¶57

(ix) No costs.

¶58

[A.D.J.C., J.] [K.R.S., J.] NCC : Yes / No 11.06.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No am

¶59

Note: Issue order copy on 14.06.2024 To:

¶60

1.The Director General of Prison, Directorate of the Central Prison, Tamil Nadu Prison, Veanals Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶61

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison Campus, Madurai City-625 016.

¶62

Page 5 of 6

¶63

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

¶64

W.P(MD)No.12217 of 2024

¶65

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J.

¶66

¶67

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai City-625 016.

¶68

W.P(MD)No.12217 of 2024

¶69

11.06.2024

¶70

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶71

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

Manimegalai v. The Director General of Prison

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manimegalai v. The Director General of Prison

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

K.Senthamarai Vs The Superintendent of Police

P.Ravichandran Vs The Superintendent of Police

Moorthi Vs The Superintendent of Police

Meenakshi Vs N.Lalitha

A.Arumuga Nainar Vs the Chairman

G.Meena @ Anjalai Vs The Superintendent of Police