(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in No.142/Utha.2/2026 issued by the second respondent dated 10.02.2026 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to grant 21 days ordinary leave without escort to the petitioner's husband Suresh S/o. Subramonian, aged 48 years, PID No. 73935 confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai.)

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent in No.142/Utha.2/2026 dated 10.02.2026 and for a direction to the third respondent to grant 21 days ordinary leave without escort, who is presently confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

2. Heard Mr.P.M.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner's husband was convicted and sentenced by the Additional and Sessions Judge, Tenkasi, by judgment dated 27.02.2025 in S.C.No.104 of 2025 to undergo life imprisonment and the same was also confirmed by this Court in Crl.A(MD).Nos. 527, 528, 530, 531, 532 and 711 of 2022 by judgment dated 27.11.2025. The said judgment has become final and the petitioner's husband has undergone sentence for more than 3 years.

4. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.12.2025 to the third respondent seeking for ordinary leave without escort for her husband in order to enable her husband to make arrangement for the sale of property and for arranging funds.

5. On receipt of the representation, the report of the Probation Officer was called for and the second respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 10.02.2026, rejected the representation on the ground that there are pending criminal cases against the detenu. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the Probation Officer recommending for the grant of ordinary leave to the petitioner's husband, the second respondent has rejected grant of ordinary leave. The learned counsel further submitted that earlier the detenu was granted emergency leave by this Court in W.P.Crl(MD).No.1006 of 2025 by an order dated 19.08.2025 and the conditions imposed were properly complied with.

7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that there are pending criminal cases against the detenu and apart from that there was no material to show that steps are being taken to sell the property and therefore, it was stated that the decision taken by the second respondent does not suffer from any illegality.

8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

9. The petitioner's husband has already undergone sentence for 3 years 10 months and 12 days and hence is entitled for ordinary leave of 21 days under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.

10. It is also seen that the petitioner's husband was granted emergency leave earlier and nothing untoward took place when such a leave was granted and the conditions were complied with. Just because there are some pending cases of the years 2013, 2017 and 2021 at the stage of FIR, that will not disentitle the detenu from being considered for grant of ordinary leave.

11. Furthermore, since the Probation Officer has given a positive report on 22.11.2025 and recommended for grant of leave, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 10.02.2026 and accordingly, the same is set aside. There will be a direction to the second respondent to grant ordinary leave for 21 days to the petitioner's husband. During the entire period of ordinary leave, the petitioner's husband shall report before the fourth respondent police daily at 5.30 p.m.

12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in the above terms.