Allowed

Indrani v. The state rep by its The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC12 Nov 2025WP Crl./429/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife challenged prison authorities' rejection of her husband's 40-day ordinary leave under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, rejected only for want of address verification. The court granted leave with conditions after she appeared and proved identity.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.05.2025 quashed; convict granted 40 days ordinary leave subject to two sureties and return to prison.

Indrani Vs The state rep by its The Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP Crl. No. 429 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12-11-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶7

WP Crl. No. 429 of 2025

Indrani

W/o.Shangar Pillai

Appellant(s)

The state rep by its

The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu Home Department, Fort, St.George, Chennai-600 009

¶14

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore-641 018

¶15

3.The Superintendent, Central prison, Coimbatore-641 018

¶16

Respondent(s)

¶17

1/7

¶18

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

¶19

WP Crl. No. 429 of 2025

¶20

PRAYER

¶21

This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Order No.617 /Tha.Ku.2/2025 dated 23.05.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consecutively direct the respondents to grant ordinary leave of 40 days without escort to the detenu, Shangar Pillai, S/o.Periyasamy aged 55 years, P.I.D No.30818, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶22

For Appellant(s): Mr. S.Manoharan For Respondent(s): Mr. A. Gokulakrishnan, Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

¶24

The order rejecting the leave application passed by the second respondent

¶25

vide proceeding No.617/Tha.Ku.2/2025 dated 23.05.2025 is under challenge in

¶26

the present writ proceedings.

¶27

2/7

¶28

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

¶29

WP Crl. No. 429 of 2025

¶30

2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was convicted for a

¶31

maximum sentence of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 (3

¶32

counts) for each count and also convicted for the offence under section 392

¶33

IPC. All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

¶34

The petitioner herein seeks grant of 40 days of ordinary leave for her

¶35

husband as per Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, and

¶36

the same has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not residing at the

¶37

address mentioned in her petition.

¶38

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced a copy of the

¶39

Probation Officer's report dated 06.05.2025, wherein, it is stated that as the petitioner is not residing within his limit, he is not able to verify the truthfulness

¶40

of the reasons assigned by the petitioner for grant of leave to her husband/detenu. He further submits that as the convict prisoner has so far undergone 10 years, 8 months and 12 days of imprisonment, he is entitled to 40

¶41

days ordinary leave.

¶42

3/7

¶43

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

¶44

WP Crl. No. 429 of 2025

¶45

5. As directed by this Court, the petitioner/wife of the detenu, namely

¶46

Indrani, is present before this Court today. She has also produced her Aadhar

¶47

Card to establish her identity.

¶48

Considering the fact that the petitioner's husband is in custody for

¶49

more than 10 years, he is entitled to ordinary leave. Though the leave has been

¶50

rejected only on the ground that the address of the petitioner/wife of the detenu

¶51

could not be located, since the petitioner appeared before this Court and

¶52

produced her Aadhar card, and as the convict prisoner is entitled to 40 days

¶53

ordinary leave, we are inclined to grant 40 days of ordinary leave to the convict

¶54

prisoner as per Rules. Further, no adverse case whatsoever has been brought

¶55

against the convict by the Police.

¶56

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the

¶57

second respondent is quashed and the convict prisoner viz., Sangar Pillai, S/o.

¶58

Periyasamy (PID No.30818), now confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, i s

¶59

hereby granted ordinary leave for a period of 40 days subject to the following

¶60

4/7

¶61

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

¶62

WP Crl. No. 429 of 2025

¶63

conditions:

¶64

(i) the petitioner shall produced two sureties to the satisfaction of the

¶65

Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶66

(ii) On production of sureties, the Convict Prisoner shall be released from

¶67

the prison on ordinary leave for 40 days.

¶68

(iii) The Convict Prisoner shall return to the prison after completion of 40

¶69

days of his ordinary leave.

¶70

(iv) The Convict Prisoner shall utilize the leave only for the ground on

¶71

which it has been granted and shall not indulge in any other activities.

¶72

Accordingly, the Writ Petition (Criminal )stands allowed. No costs.

¶73

(N.SATHISH KUMAR J.) (M.JOTHIRAMAN J.) 12-11-2025

¶74

2/2

¶75

Index:Yes/No

¶76

Speaking/Non-speaking order

¶77

Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶78

mrp

¶79

5/7

¶80

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

¶81

WP Crl. No. 429 of 2025

¶82

¶83

1.The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu Home Deparatment, Fort, St.George, Chennai-600 009

¶84

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore-641 018

¶85

3.The Superintendent Central prison, Coimbatore-641 018

¶86

6/7

¶87

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

¶88

WP Crl. No. 429 of 2025

¶89

N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN J.

¶90

mrp

¶91

WP Crl. No. 429 of 2025

¶92

12-11-2025

¶93

7/7

¶94

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

Indrani v. The state rep by its The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrani v. The state rep by its The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu

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

A.Saraswathi Vs State Rep. by

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Vs Venkatesh Kumar

Saravanan Vs the State Rep by Its

M.Ajith Vs State Represented by

P.Azhagesan Vs the State Rep.by

Mariyappan.K Vs the Superintendent of Police (South Region)