Dismissed

Saroja v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison

Madras HC20 Dec 2024WP(MD)/31021/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking ordinary leave without escort for a life convict prisoner convicted of murder. The judge held that a prisoner convicted under Section 302 r/w 392 IPC is not entitled to ordinary leave and no case for emergency leave was established.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus directing grant of ordinary leave without escort dismissed. No costs.

Saroja Vs The Deputy Inspector General of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD) No.31021 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Date : 20.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

W.P(MD) No.31021 of 2024

Saroja

... Petitioner

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, O/o.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison

¶11

and Correctional Services,

¶12

Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison Campus, New Jail Road,

¶13

Madurai.

¶14

2.The Superintendent of Prison, O/o.Superintendent of Central Prison, Madurai Jail Road,

¶15

Madurai District.

¶16

3.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.

¶17

4.The Inspector of Police, O/o.Srivilliputtur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶18

1/4

¶19

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

¶20

W.P(MD) No.31021 of 2024

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to grant an ordinary leave for the period of 30 days without escort to the petitioner's son namely Kumar Son of Mani who is life convict prisoner in C.P.No.4975 at Madurai Central Prison by considering the petitioner's representation dated 17.12.2024.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ramadurai

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶26

Heard both sides.

¶27

2. The petitioner's son is in central prison, Madurai. He was

¶28

convicted in a murder case. When the sentence was suspended and he was out on bail, he committed another murder which was for gain. Both the convictions have been confirmed by this Court. Since the petitioner's

¶29

son has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 r/w 392 of IPC, he is not entitled for ordinary leave. We are also satisfied that no case for

¶30

emergency leave has been made out.

¶31

2/4

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD) No.31021 of 2024

¶34

3. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶35

(G.R.S., J.) (R.P., J.) 20.12.2024

¶36

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No rmi

¶37

To 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, O/o.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison and Correctional Services, Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison Campus, New Jail Road, Madurai.

¶38

2.The Superintendent of Prison, O/o.Superintendent of Central Prison, Madurai Jail Road, Madurai District.

¶39

3.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.

¶40

4.The Inspector of Police, O/o.Srivilliputtur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

¶41

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

¶42

3/4

¶43

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

¶44

W.P(MD) No.31021 of 2024

¶45

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J.

¶46

rmi

¶47

W.P(MD) No.31021 of 2024

¶48

20.12.2024

¶49

4/4

¶50

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

Saroja v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroja v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison

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

G.Thamaraikannan Vs Umamaheswari

Anthony Raj @ Anthony Vs The Inspector of Police

The Commissioner of Customs Vs a.T.Baskaran

Radhika Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by

Ida Glory Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Murugesan @ Kandhan Vs The State rep. by its