Dismissed¶32

Rajathi v. The State Represented by its

Madras HC17 Feb 2026WP Crl./1073/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court criminal writ (W.P.(Crl).No.1073 of 2025) dismissed 17.02.2026; mother of life convict Shamprakash (Convict No.10362, PID No.388359, Central Prison – I, Puzhal) sought 15-day escort-free emergency leave via certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 against rejection order dated 14.02.2025 (Proc. No.705438/Thaku2/2025) by Superintendent, Puzhal Central Prison – I; held: Rule 35, Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 bars ordinary leave where another criminal case pending; three cases pending; Probation Officer report — petitioner has another son; no perversity; writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Court found no perversity in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition; the connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. ¶32

Rajathi Vs The State Represented by its — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction requiring the respondents to grant emergency leave for 15 days (without escort) to her son, a life convict prisoner detained at Central Prison – I, Puzhal — i.e., whether the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 rejecting the request is sustainable. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The Court found no perversity in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition; the connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 strictly prohibits granting ordinary leave to a convicted prisoner who has another criminal case pending against him; accordingly, the respondents' rejection of the petitioner's representation was upheld.

¶31

Key takeaways

Three criminal cases were pending against the detenue, and per the report of the Probation Officer the petitioner had another son to look after her.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Criminal) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking certiorarified mandamus filed by Rajathi, mother of life convict Shamprakash (Convict No.10362, PID No.388359), confined at Central Prison – I, Puzhal, challenging the second respondent's order dated 14.02.2025 (Proceedings No.705438/Thaku2/2025) rejecting her request for 15 days' emergency leave without escort, sought so that the detenue could help mobilise funds for the petitioner's medical expenses. Held, dismissing the writ petition: Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 strictly prohibits granting ordinary leave to a convicted prisoner who has another criminal case pending against him; three cases were pending against the detenue and, per the Probation Officer's report, the petitioner had another son to look after her; consequently, no perversity was found in the impugned order. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed. Coram: P. Velmurugan and M. Jothiraman, JJ.; order made by P. Velmurugan, J. Dated 17.02.2026.

¶1

W.P.(Crl).No.1073 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 17.02.2026

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

W.P.(Crl).No.1073 of 2025 and

¶7

W.P.M.P.(Crl).No.507 of 2025

Rajathi

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The State represented by its. The Director General of Prison, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶12

The Superintendent, Puzhal Central Prison – I, Puzhal – 600 066. .. Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition (Criminal) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with impugned order dated 14.02.2025 in proceedings No.705438/Thaku2/2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to grant emergency leave for 15 days without escort to the detenue, Shamprakash S/o. Sagayaraj, aged about 27 years bearing convict No.10362 (PID) 388359) confined at Central Prison – I, Puzhal.

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(Crl).No.1073 of 2025

¶17

For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Sadhana

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Addl. Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John ******

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(The Order of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan, J)

¶21

This petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking directions to the respondents, to grant emergency leave for 15 days to her son, who is the life convict prisoner namely Shamprakash S/o.Sagayaraj, aged about 27 years, Convict No.10362, PID No.388359, detained at Central Prison-I, Puzhal.

¶22

2 According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is mother of the detenue, who is the life convict prisoner. The petitioner, being the aged lady, facing medical ailments and struggling to meet out the medical expenses and hence the presence of the detenue is necessary to mobilize funds. But the respondents have rejected the petitioner’s representation without any valid reason.

¶23

3 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are three

¶24

cases pending against the life convict prisoner and hence as per the provisions of Rule

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(Crl).No.1073 of 2025

¶28

35 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, he is eligible to avail leave. In

¶29

the impugned order itself the respondents have clearly stated the reason for rejection.

¶30

4 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and perused the materials on record.

¶31

5 It is seen that there are three cases pending against the detenue. Further as per the report of the Probation Officer, the petitioner has another son to look after the petitioner. Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, strictly prohibits granting ordinary leave to a convicted prisoner, who has another criminal case pending against them. Therefore the respondents rejected the petitioner’s representation.

¶32

6 We do not find any perversity in the impugned order and hence the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stands closed.

¶33

(P.V., J) (M.J.R., J) 17.02.2026

¶34

cgi To

¶35

The Director General of Prison, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Puzhal Central Prison – I, Puzhal – 600 066. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶36

3/4

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(Crl).No.1073 of 2025

¶39

P.VELMURUGAN, J. and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

¶40

cgi

¶41

W.P.(Crl).No.1073 of 2025 and W.P.M.P.(Crl).No.507 of 2025