R.Kannaki v. The State Represented By Its,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.03.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN R.Kannaki
...Petitioner/wife of the detenu
vs.
The State represented by its, 1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Home, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Trichy Range, Trichy-620 020.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy-620 020
...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order bearing No.106/Mu.Vu./2024, dated 03.02.2024, passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consecutively, direct the respondents to grant ordinary leave for 30 days without escort to the detenue, Ravi, S/o.Ravichandran, aged about 55 years, Convict No.21861, confined at Central Prison, Trichy.
For Petitioner :
Dr.S.Manoharan For Respondents :
Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.) On the ground that the present petitioner's husband is required for arranging funds for her medical treatment and to support her repairing the hut in which the petitioner, along with her grandson, are living, a representation was given to the respondents seeking for grant of ordinary leave, which was rejected on the ground that a Special Leave Petition is pending before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as against the judgment and conviction of the petitioner's husband by placing reliance on Rule 2 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced a copy of the Probationary Officer's Report dated 29.02.2024, which recommends for release of the petitioner's husband on Ordinary Leave. However, as against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the petitioner's husband preferred an appeal in Diary No.18480/2023, which is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the respondents are not in a position to grant Ordinary leave in view of an embargo under Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner's husband is otherwise eligible for 21 days of ordinary leave.
3. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made on either sides. The reason assigned by the petitioner for grant of Ordinary Leave to her husband is that his presence is required to arrange funds for her medical treatment and to repair their hut which is in a dilapidated condition. Rule 20 of
Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 provides grounds for grant of Ordinary Leave to the prisoner and one such ground is to enable the prisoner to make arrangements for the livelihood of the family and for the settlement of life after release which includes settling family disputes like partition etc.,. The Probation Officer has also favourably recommended the case of the petitioner's husband for grant of Ordinary Leave.
4. Insofar as the objection raised by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that since an appeal against the judgment of the conviction and sentence is pending before this Court which has an embargo is concerned, a coordinate Bench of this Court, in which, one of us is a party, in the case of Latha vs State represented by Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and another in W.P.(MD)No.6398 of 2023 dated 29.09.2023 had already taken a view that pendency of an appeal before the appellate Court will not be an embargo for consideration of any request for grant of Ordinary Leave.
5. In view of the ratio laid down in Latha's case, we do not find any justification on the part of the respondents to raise the pendency of an appeal as an embargo.
6. In the light of the above observations and findings, there shall a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to forthwith release the petitioner's husband viz., Ravi, S/o.Ravichandran, aged about 55 years, on Ordinary Leave for a period of 21 days, without escort, on the following conditions. (i) Respondents are directed to release the Convict Prisoner viz., Ravi, S/o.Ravichandran, aged about 55 years, on Ordinary Leave for a period of 21 days i.e., from 11.03.2024 to 01.04.2024.
(ii) The Convict Prisoner shall be released on 11.03.2024 at 10.00 am and surrender before the Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy-620 020, on 01.04.2024 at 05.30 p.m.
(iii) The Convict Prisoner is directed to report before the Pappanadu Police Station, Tanjavur District, once a week i.e., on every Monday at 10.30 a.m, during the period of leave. (iv) The Convict Prisoner shall utilize the leave only for the ground on which it has been granted and shall not indulge in any other activities.
7. With the above directions, the writ petition stands allowed. (M.S.R.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 06.03.2024 Anu Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Note: Issue Order copy on 08 .03.2024 To 1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Home, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Trichy Range, Trichy-620 020.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy-620 020 4.The Inspector of Police, Pappanadu Police Station, Tanjavur District.
5.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court.
M.S.RAMESH, J and SUNDER MOHAN, J Anu 06.03.2024