S.Kumar @ Pushpakumar Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by its, The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services,

¶14

Trichirappalli Range, Trichirappalli.

¶15

2.The Superintendent of Prison, Trichirappalli Central Prison, Trichirappalli.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

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

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P(Crl)MD.No.2019 of 2025

¶21

records pertaining to the impugned order No.RO TRY/539/2025-G1 dated 18.10.2025 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant ordinary leave for 40 days without escort, to the petitioner who is a life convict (Convict Prisoner No.18646) confined at Central Prison, Trichirappalli.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Selvakumar

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Order of the Court was made by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)

¶26

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent, dated 16.10.2025, whereby the request made by the petitioner seeking 40 days of ordinary leave without escort was rejected.

¶27

2.The petitioner was convicted in S.C.No.87 of 2010 and

¶28

sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The conviction and sentence were also confirmed by the Judgment of this Court in

¶29

2/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P(Crl)MD.No.2019 of 2025

¶32

Crl.A(MD)No.258 of 2013, dated 13.09.2017. The petitioner has been undergoing imprisonment for more than 16 years. Therefore, he is eligible for 40 days of ordinary leave. The petitioner's mother is suffering from medical ailments and there is no one to take care of her. Hence, the petitioner applied for 40 days of ordinary leave without escort. However, the first respondent rejected the request on the ground that the Probation Officer did not recommend the case of the petitioner for grant of leave. That apart, the reasons mentioned in the leave application were not genuine.

¶33

3.However, admittedly, the petitioner has been

¶34

incarcerating for more than 16 years and as per the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 2024, he is entitled to 40 days of ordinary leave.

¶35

4.Considering the above facts and circumstances and also

¶36

the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant leave for 30 days.

¶37

3/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P(Crl)MD.No.2019 of 2025

¶40

5.In view of the above, the order passed by the first respondent, dated 16.10.2025 is set aside. The first respondent is directed to grant 30 days of ordinary leave without escort to the petitioner, on condition that he shall report before the Inspector of Police, Pudukkottai Town Police Station, Pudukkottai, daily at 05.30 p.m. The Inspector of Police, Pudukkottai Town Police Station, Pudukkottai, shall ensure that the petitioner surrenders before the second respondent on completion of 30 days of ordinary leave. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition (Criminal) is closed.

¶41

[G.K.I.J.,] & [R.P.J.,] NCC : Yes/No 09.12.2025 Index : Yes/No ps

¶42

4/6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P(Crl)MD.No.2019 of 2025

¶45

To

¶46

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Trichirappalli Range, Trichirappalli.

¶47