Kupputhai Vs The State rep.by its, The Deputy Inspector General of Prison

Writ Petition (Criminal) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order bearing No.1109/Kc/2025, dated 16.10.2025 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consecutively direct the respondents to grant ordinary leave for 40 days without escort to the detenue, Rajiv Gandhi @ Marimuthu S/o.Manoharan, aged about 39 years, CT No.19266, PID No.21497, detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manoharan

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(Crl).No.1749 of 2025

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

This petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking directions to the respondents, to grant ordinary leave for 40 days to her brother, who is the life convict prisoner namely Rajiv Gandhi @ Marimuthu S/o.Manoharan, aged about 39 years, CT No.19266, PID No.21497, detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶21

2 According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is the brother of the detenue, who is the life convict prisoner and the petitioner, being a lady and separated from her husband is struggling to meet her daily needs and to look after her mother and hence the presence of the detenue is necessary. The detenue is in incarceration for more than 12 years and he is eligible to avail the ordinary leave. But the respondents have rejected the petitioner’s representation without any valid reason.

¶22

3 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the life convict prisoner involved in prison offence and thereby violated the rules of prison manual. Therefore the detenue is not eligible to avail the ordinary leave as per the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, Volume 3, Rule No.21(k). In the impugned order itself the respondents have clearly stated the reason for rejection.

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(Crl).No.1749 of 2025

¶26

4 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional

¶27

Public Prosecutor for the respondents and perused the materials on record.

¶28

5 It is seen that the detenue involved in the prison offence and hence the Superintendent of Prison has not recommended the detenue to avail leave as sought for by the petitioner. As per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, Volume 3, Rule No.21(k), the prisoner, who involved in the prison offence is not eligible to avail ordinary leave. Therefore the respondents rejected the petitioner’s representation.

¶29

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

¶30

(P.V., J) (M.J.R., J) 10.02.2026

¶31

cgi To

¶32