A life convict sought quashing of an order refusing him 21 days ordinary leave without escort to repair his house. The court found no infirmity in the rejection, noting a life threat against him and absence of recommendation by the Probation Officer and jurisdictional police, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.Crl.(MD) No.943 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.P.Crl.(MD) No.943 of 2026
Duraipandi
... Petitioner
-vs-
..Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide proceedings in NO.RO/TRY/635/2025-G1 dated 13.12.2025 and quash the same as illegal and
_____________ Page 1 of 5_
W.P.Crl.(MD) No.943 of 2026
consequently direct the first respondent to grant 21 days ordinary leave without police escort to the petitioner namely Duraipandi, S/o.Mayandi, aged about 42 years, Life Convict Prisoner PID No.100849 confined at Central Prison, Trichy.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.S. Prabhu
For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.]
The prayer in the petition is to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent in NO.RO/TRY/635/2025-G1 dated 13.12.2025 and direct the
first respondent to grant 21 days ordinary leave without police escort to the petitioner namely Duraipandi, S/o.Mayandi, aged about 42 years, Life Convict Prisoner PID No.100849 confined at Central Prison, Trichy.
_____________ Page 2 of 5_
W.P.Crl.(MD) No.943 of 2026
ground that he want to repair his house. He further submitted that his mother died on 27.01.2024 and no one is there to look after the property, however it was rejected on the ground that there is a life threat at the hands of the first accused in Crime No.639 of 2025 registered for the offence under Section 103 of BNS. Further the Probation Officer as well as the jurisdiction police had not recommended for ordinary leave, therefore this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the first respondent and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
3.In view of the same, the petition stands dismissed. However the
petitioner is at liberty to file a petition for emergency leave on valid grounds
[G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.]
19.02.2026
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No aav
To:
_____________ Page 3 of 5_
W.P.Crl.(MD) No.943 of 2026
Page 4 of 5
W.P.Crl.(MD) No.943 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. and R.POORNIMA, J.
aav
W.P.Crl.(MD) No.943 of 2026
19.02.2026
Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the rejection of 21 days ordinary leave without police escort to a life convict, on grounds of life threat and non-recommendation by Probation Officer and police, was sustainable.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Duraipandi
The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services Trichy Range
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Trichy
The Superintendent of Police Dindigul District
The Inspector of Police Eriodu Police Station
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
R.POORNIMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
