Allowed

Dhanalakshmi v. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by

Madras HC22 Oct 2024WP(MD)/17768/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed two writ petitions filed for ordinary leave for life convicts. The Court set aside earlier refusal orders and directed the respondents to grant 30 days ordinary leave without escort to both prisoners Sridhar and Kumar @ Palanikumar.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 05.01.2024 set aside; 30 days ordinary leave without escort granted to both convicts effective 05.11.2024 with conditions of daily reporting and jail rules compliance.

Dhanalakshmi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) Nos. 17768 and 18145 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

W.P.(MD) Nos.17768 and 18145 of 2024

¶7

W.P(MD) No.17768 of 2024

¶8

Dhanalakshmi ... Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

The Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009.

¶11

The Director General of Police/ Director General of Prisons Correctional Services C.M.D.A. Towers- II, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai.

¶12

The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison Campus New Jail Road, Madurai- 625 016

¶13

The Superintendent of Prison Madurai Central Prison Madurai District 625 016

¶14

....Respondents.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 1 of 9_

¶16

W.P.(MD) Nos. 17768 and 18145 of 2024

¶17

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in No.46/c.j.2/2024 dated 05.01.2024 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the third respondent herein to pass orders to grant 40 days ordinary leave without escort to the petitioner's husband by name Sridhar, son of Rasudevar, aged 53 years CP.No.5418 who is undergoing his life sentence for more than 17 years in the Central Prison, Madurai for availing better treatment in a private hospital on the basis of Rule 40 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶20

W.P(MD) No.18145 of 2024

¶21

Marudambal ... Petitioner

¶22

-vs-

¶23

The Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009.

¶24

The Director General of Police/ Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 2 of 9_

¶26

W.P.(MD) Nos. 17768 and 18145 of 2024

¶27

C.M.D.A. Towers- II, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,

¶28

Egmore, Chennai.

¶29

The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison Campus New Jail Road, Madurai- 625 016

¶30

The Superintendent of Prison Madurai Central Prison Madurai District 625 016

¶31

....Respondents.

¶32

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in No.45/c.j.2/2024 dated 05.01.2024 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the third respondent herein to pass orders to grant 40 days ordinary leave without escort to the petitioner's husband namely Kumar @ Palanikumar,S/o.Samayamuthu, Life convict Prisoner No.5216, aged about 53 years confining at Madurai Central Prison, Madurai to make arrangements for petitioener's daughter marriage to admit my son in an institution for pursue his higher education and to admit in a private hospital for undergoing better treatment on the basis of Rule 40 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶33

For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani

¶34

For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 9_

¶36

W.P.(MD) Nos. 17768 and 18145 of 2024

¶37

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶38

WP(MD) No.17768 of 2024 has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking to set aside the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the third respondent, Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison campus, Madurai and grant 40 days ordinary to the husband of the petitioner namely Sridhar, S/o. Rasudevar aged about 53 years, Convict Prisoner No. 5418 who is now confined at Central Prison, Madurai.

¶39

W.P(MD)No.18145 of 2024 had been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking to set aside the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the third respondent, Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison campus, Madurai and grant ordinary leave for 40 days to the husband of the petitioner namely Kumar @ Palanikumar, S/o.Samayamuthu aged about 53 years, Convict Prisoner No. 5216 who is now confined at Central Prison, Madurai.

¶40

Both the husband of the two petitioners had been convicted in S.C. No. 264 of 2005 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore by judgment dated 31.03.2006 for offences

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 9_

¶42

W.P.(MD) Nos. 17768 and 18145 of 2024

¶43

punishable under sections 458,395 and 396 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

¶44

The husband of the writ petitioner in WP(MD) No.17768 of 2024 Sridhar is A6 in the sessions case. The husband of the Writ Petitioner in W.P(MD) No.18145 of 2024, Kumar @ Palanikumar is A3 in the Sessions Case.

¶45

It is contended on behalf of the respondents that both the convict prisoners have availed leave on several earlier occasions. The reason now sought for grant of leave is that the writ petitioner in WP(MD) No.17768 of 2024 has stated that the convict prisoner is suffering from heart problem and requires treatment in a private hospital. It is also stated that he is maintaining good conduct in the prison. It is further stated that he had been granted leave on several occasions and he always surrendered on the stipulated day.

¶46

The writ petitioner in W.P(MD) No.18145 of 2024 had stated that her daughter had completed B.A and is now pursuing law in Madurai and his presence is required to make arrangements for the alliance. The presence of the husband of the petitioner would be advantageous.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 5 of 9_

¶48

W.P.(MD) Nos. 17768 and 18145 of 2024

¶49

It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases that the Court may decide the date on which the leave is to be granted and if the leave is granted both the convict prisoners would be take advantage of the same by taking treatment and by arranging alliance to the daughter of the petitioner respectively.

¶50

On perusal of the records it is seen that on an earlier occasion also leave had been granted without escort. We have sought a report whether any hostility prevails in that area and we are informed that as on date no such report had come to the knowledge of the respondent.

¶51

Taking into consideration all the facts the impugned orders passed by

¶52

the third respondent dated 05.01.2024 is set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. The convict prisoner namely in Sridhar S/o. Rasudevar, C.P. No. 5418 and Convict Prisoner namely Kumar @ Palanikumar, S/o.Samayamuthu. C.P. No.5216 are granted ordinary leave for a period of 30 days effective from 05.11.2024 at 10.00 a.m., till 07.12.2024 @ 5.00 pm., During the interregnum period the convict prisoners shall report before the Inspector of Police, Subramaniyapuram Police Station daily at 10.30 am., without fail. Further

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 6 of 9_

¶54

W.P.(MD) Nos. 17768 and 18145 of 2024

¶55

during the leave period, the convict prisoner shall abide by all the conditions prescribed in the Jail Manual.

¶56

[C.V.K., J.] [R.P., J.] 22.10.2024

¶57

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No aav

¶58

Note: Issue order copy on 28.10.2024

¶59

To:

¶60

The Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009.

¶61

The Director General of Police/ Director General of Prisons Correctional Services C.M.D.A. Towers- II, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai.

¶62

The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison Campus New Jail Road, Madurai- 625 016

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 7 of 9_

¶64

W.P.(MD) Nos. 17768 and 18145 of 2024

¶65

The Superintendent of Prison Madurai Central Prison

¶66

Madurai District 625 016

¶67

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶68

Copy to

¶69

The Inspector of Police Subramaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 8 of 9_

¶71

W.P.(MD) Nos. 17768 and 18145 of 2024

¶72

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J.

¶73

aav

¶74

W.P.(MD) Nos.17768 and 18145 of 2024

¶75

22.10.2024

¶76

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 9 of 9_

Dhanalakshmi v. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanalakshmi v. The State of Tamil Nadu represented 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

Karuppaiah Vs The Superintendent of Police

Yesu Balan Vs The Inspector of Police

Jothika Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Seeni @ Seenivasan Vs The Inspector of Police

Raman Vs The Inspector Of Police

K. Palanisamy Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Prison