| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 5546
|
| Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras |
| Case No : WP. Crl. No. 1876 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR.(MRS) JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN |
| Parties : Noorudeen Versus The State rep. by its, The Director General of Prisons & Correctional Services, Tamilnadu Prison Department, Chennai & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: M. Mubeen, Advocate. For the Respondents: C.R. Malarvannan, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side). |
| Date of Judgment : 03-08-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 MHC 3205,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (Rules)
2. Catch Words:
- Emergency leave
- Rule 35
- Suspension of Sentence Rules
- Convict
- Quash
- Mandamus
- Leave without escort
3. Summary:
The petitioner, a convict in Central Prison, Puzhal‑I, sought six days of emergency leave to attend to his mother’s medical condition. The prison authorities rejected the request invoking the absolute bar under Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. The Court noted that while Rule 35 is generally absolute, it does not preclude judicial discretion to grant leave when circumstances merit. The petitioner had not previously availed any leave, and the reasons for the emergency leave were supported by a medical certificate and were undisputed. Pending cases against the petitioner were either belatedly instituted or of a nature that did not justify denial of leave. Consequently, the Court held that the bar under Rule 35 should not prevent the grant of leave and quashed the impugned order. The authorities were directed to grant six days of emergency leave with escort, specifying dates and surrender requirements.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in No.CP-PU1/1981/2026-R2 dated 22.05.2026, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to WP Crl. No. 1876 of 2026 grant 06 days Emergency Leave without escort to the petitioner namely Noorudeen, S/o.Siraj (PID No.125277), confined at Central Prison, Puzhal-I, Chennai, within a time frame to be fixed by this Honble Court and thus render justice.)
Dr. Anita Sumanth J.
1. Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for the respondents has instructions to enable us to dispose this writ petition even at the time of admission. Hence, by consent, final orders are passed disposing the matter even at the stage of admission.
2. Petitioner is a convict confined in Central Prison, Puzhal-I, Chennai. He has undergone actual imprisonment of 4 years and 26 days including remand of 1133 days and conviction period of 11 months and 18 days as on 01.08.2026. He has not availed any leave thus far.
3. While so, he had approached the authorities seeking emergency leave for a period of 6 days in order to attend to his mother’s emergent medical ailments for which medical certificate has been placed on file and also enclosed with the representation. The plea for emergency leave has come to be rejected on 22.05.2026 citing the bar of Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (Rules).
4. Mr.M.Mubeen, learned counsel appears for the petitioner and would submit that the convict has not availed any leave thus far and reasons for seeking leave are genuine. Hence, he should be permitted to avail the leave and attend to the medical ailments of his mother.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) would submit that the bar under Rule 35 is absolute and in such circumstances, the authorities have rightly rejected the request for leave.
6. We have heard both learned counsel.
7. It is true that the bar under Rule 35 of the Rules is absolute qua the authorities. This would however not be a fetter for the Court to consider the grant of leave if we otherwise deem it to be appropriate.
8. In the present case, the convict has undergone actual imprisonment of 4 years and 26 days. The reasons cited for seeking leave have not been disputed by the authority. The reason seems to be genuine and in that a medical certificate has been placed before us. The authorities have not obtained a report of the Probation Officer in view of the fact that the plea has been rejected even at the threshold invoking the bar under Rule 35.
9. Be that as it may, and adjudicating to the bar under Rule 35, the cases pending as against the convict are in Cr.No.1 of 2018 before the I Additional Sessions Court, Trichy and PRC.No.190 of 2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Trichy. As far as the latter case is concerned, the charge sheet has been filed very belatedly only in 2025, in relation to a crime that was registered in the year 1998.
10. In light of the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the convict must be granted 6 days leave as sought for as. To sum up,
(i)the bar of Rule 35 does not stand in the way of this Court considering the plea for leave,
(ii)the reasons seeking emergency leave are not disputed to be genuine,
(ii)the convict has not availed any leave thus far, (iv)the pending cases have been initiated belatedly.
11. The impugned order is hence quashed and the authorities are directed to grant emergency leave of 6 days from 05.08.2026 to 10.08.2026 with escort to Convict Prisoner viz., Noorudeen, S/o. Siraj, confined in Central Prison, Puzhal-I, Chennai. The Convict Prisoner shall be released on 05.08.2026 at 10.00 am and he shall surrender before the Central Prison, Puzhal-I, Chennai, on 11.08.2026 before 10.00 a.m.
12. This writ petition (criminal) stands allowed in terms of this order.
|
| |
