Allowed

Priyadharshini v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC23 Jun 2025WP Crl.(MD)/141/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife of a convict challenged rejection of his one-month ordinary leave request under Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, sought for admitting his son to school and completing house construction. The Court instead granted six days emergency leave with escort on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Six days emergency leave with escort from 25/26.06.2025 to 01/02.07.2025, escort expenses borne by petitioner, subject to Jail Manual conditions; no costs; connected M.P. closed.

Priyadharshini Vs The Secretary to Government — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.CRL(MD)No.141 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

W.P.CRL(MD)No.141 of 2025 and WPMP Crl(MD)No.37 of 2025

Priyadharshini

... Petitioner

vs.

The Secretary to Government, Home Department (Prison), Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai 9.

¶11

The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, O/o. the Deputy Inspector General of Prison and Correctional Services Department, New Jail Road, Madurai.

¶12

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records

¶16

Page No.1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.CRL(MD)No.141 of 2025

¶19

of the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in No.512/U.Tha.2/2025 dated 14.05.2025 and quash the same and consequently directing the 1 to 3 respondents to grant one month ordinary leave without escort to the petitioner's husband namely, Baskaran s/o. Panchavarnam (CP No.6092) now confined under Central Prison, Madurai.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Srikanth For Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

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

¶23

Challenging the order passed by the 2^nd respondent dated

¶24

14.05.2025, rejecting the request of the petitioner for granting 30 days of ordinary leave to her husband / convict prisoner, this writ petition is filed to quash the same, with a consequential direction to the respondents to grant one month of ordinary leave to the convict prisoner without escort.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

¶26

petitioner is seeking ordinary leave to her husband/convict prisoner on

¶27

the ground that his presence is required for mobilizing funds to admit

¶28

Page No.2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.CRL(MD)No.141 of 2025

¶31

his son in III Standard and to complete the construction of the residential house. However, the 2^nd respondent rejected the petitioner's request vide impugned order, stating that the convict prisoner is not entitled to ordinary leave as per Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules. Thus, the learned counsel would pray for setting aside the impugned order.

¶32

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor who takes notice

¶33

for the respondents, submitted that the convict prisoner is facing two pending cases against him and thereby, he is not eligible for ordinary leave as per Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner vide impugned order, which does not warrant interference by this Court.

¶34

Though the learned Prosecutor submitted that the convict prisoner is not entitled to ordinary leave as per Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, considering the request of the petitioner that her husband's presence is required to mobilize funds to admit his son and also to complete the construction of the residential

¶35

Page No.3 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.CRL(MD)No.141 of 2025

¶38

house, we are inclined to grant emergency leave to the convict prisoner for 6 days with escort, on the following conditions:

¶39

(i) The convict prisoner namely, Baskaran, son of

¶40

Panchavarnam (CP.No.6092) now detained in the Central

¶41

Prison, Madurai, is granted emergency leave for 6 days from 26.06.2025 to 01.07.2025 with necessary escorts.

¶42

(ii) The convict prisoner shall be released from the Prison at 5.00 p.m on 25.06.2025 and he shall return back to the Prison at 10.00 a.m on 02.07.2025.

¶43

(iii) The entire escort expenses shall be borne by the petitioner.

¶44

(iv) During the leave period, the convict prisoner shall abide by all the conditions prescribed in the Jail Manual.

¶45

With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands allowed.

¶46

No costs. Connected M.P is closed.

¶47

[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 23.06.2025

¶48

Index : Yes / No

¶49

Page No.4 of 6

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.CRL(MD)No.141 of 2025

¶52

Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶53

Note to Registry:

¶54

Issue order copy on 24.06.2025.

¶55

bala

¶56

To:

¶57

The Secretary to Government, Home Department (Prison), Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai 9.

¶58

The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, O/o. the Deputy Inspector General of Prison and Correctional Services Department, New Jail Road, Madurai.

¶59

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.

¶60

The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

¶61

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

¶62

Page No.5 of 6

¶63

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

¶64

W.P.CRL(MD)No.141 of 2025

¶65

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J.

¶66

bala

¶67

ORDER MADE IN W.P.CRL(MD)No.141 of 2025 DATED : 23.06.2025

¶68

Page No.6 of 6

¶69

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

Priyadharshini v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyadharshini v. The Secretary to Government

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

Karuppasamy @ Kalaingar Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Melrose Vs The Secretary to Government

Murugeshwari Vs The Additional Director General of Police (Prison)

Maharajan Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Perumal Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

C.Suganya Vs The Superintendent of Prison