Disposed¶30

Muthulakshmi v. The Secretary

Madras HC17 Feb 2026WP Crl.(MD)/878/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ordinary leave without escort; prisoner leave with escort condition modified; Article 226 writ of mandamus; convict Surendar PID No.408377; S.C.No.85 of 2019 Mahila Court Pudukottai; Section 376(1) IPC; pending appeal Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2022; RO.TRY/30/2026-C; Trichy Central Jail; daily reporting 05.30 p.m.; All Women Police Station Aranthangi; order quashed insofar as escort; W.P.Crl.(MD) No.878 of 2026; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; decision dated 17.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Escort condition in the order dated 25.01.2026 modified so that the convict Surendar goes on 20 days' ordinary leave without escort, subject to usual jail conditions and daily reporting before the third respondent police at 05.30 p.m. till completion of the leave period; the order is quashed insofar as it ordered escort alone ¶30

Muthulakshmi Vs The Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order of the second respondent imposing an escort condition on the convict's ordinary leave should be quashed and the convict directed to be granted ordinary leave for 20 days without escort

¶21

Court's answer

The condition imposed in the order dated 25.01.2026 directing the convict to go on ordinary leave with escort is modified, and the convict shall go on ordinary leave without escort

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The convict is directed to comply with the usual conditions imposed by the jail authorities and to report before the third respondent police daily at 05.30 p.m. till the completion of the leave period, return to prison on expiry of leave, and if any complaint arises from the victim or victim's family during leave, the third respondent is to take appropriate action

¶28

Key takeaways

The order dated 25.01.2026 is quashed insofar as the ordering of escort alone, and the Writ Petition is disposed ofratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Criminal) under Article 226 by the wife of a convict (Surendar, PID No.408377, convicted in S.C.No.85 of 2019 by the Mahila Court, Pudukottai under Section 376(1) IPC; appeal pending in Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2022) seeking 20 days' ordinary leave without escort. The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Jail had granted ordinary leave only with escort (No.RO.TRY/30/2026-C, dated 25.01.2026), which the petitioner, being unable to afford escort costs, challenged. The Division Bench (G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, J. authoring) modified the escort condition, permitted ordinary leave without escort subject to usual jail conditions and daily reporting before the third respondent police at 05.30 p.m. till expiry of leave, quashed the order insofar as it ordered escort alone, and disposed of the petition.

¶1

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.878 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.02.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.878 of 2026

Muthulakshmi

... Petitioner

-vs-

The Secretary Home Department (Prison), State of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶11

The Superintendent of Prison Trichy Central Jail Trichirapalli Trichy-20

¶12

The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Aranthangi, Pudukottai District

¶13

..Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to grant ordinary leave for 20 days without escort to the prisoner namely Surendar, S/o.Subramaniyan, convict PID No.408377 in light of proceedings dated 23.01.2026 in RO.TRY/30/2026-C by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.02.2026

¶15

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.878 of 2026

¶18

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Paranjothi for M/s.KBS Law Office For Respondents :Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

[Order of the Court was made by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.]

¶21

The prayer in the petition is to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent in No.RO.TRY/30/2026-C dated 25.01.2026 and direct the second respondent to grant ordinary leave for 20 days without escort to the prisoner namely Surendar, S/o.Subramaniyan, convict PID No.408377

¶22

2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was convicted by the Mahila Court, Pudukottai in S.C.No.85 of 2019 and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376(1) of IPC. Aggrieved over the same, the convict has filed an appeal before this Court in Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2022 and the same is pending. The petitioner submitted an application seeking ordinary leave for a period of 20 days. After considering the request made by the petitioner, the second respondent granted ordinary leave to the convict with escort. The petitioner being a poor person, could not afford the cost of escort.

¶23

_____________ Page 2 of 5_

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.878 of 2026

¶26

In view of the above, the condition imposed in the order dated

¶27

25.01.2026 directing the convict to go on ordinary leave with escort is modified

¶28

and the convict shall go on ordinary leave without escort. However, the convict is directed to comply with the usual conditions imposed by the jail authorities and he should also report before the third respondent police daily at 05.30 p.m. till the completion of leave period. He shall duly comply with the conditions and return to the prison on expiry of the leave period. If any complaint from the victim or the family of the victim as against the convict during the leave period , the third respondent is directed to take appropriate action.

¶29