Vellaiyammal v. The State Rep By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.11.2023 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Vellaiyammal ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by its 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore.

2.The Superintendent Central Prison, Coimbatore.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order bearing No.14551/Tha.Ku.3/2023 dated 10.11.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to grant ordinary leave for 60 days without escort to the detenu Saravanan, son of Kandhasamy aged about 50 years bearing Convict No.825 confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Bakiyaraj For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,] (1)The present writ petition has been filed in the nature of certiorarified mandamus seeking to quash the order of the 2nd respondent dated 10.11.2023 and to direct the 1st respondent to grant ordinary leave to the detenu Saravanan, son of Kandhasamy aged about 50 years bearing Convict No.825, for 60 days without escort confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore.

(2)The learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

(3)3.It is seen that the detenu Saravanan was convicted for the offences u/s.302 r/w 34, 307 r/w 34, 460, 394 r/w 397 of IPC and was sentenced to life. It is further seen that earlier, the detenu was granted emergency leave during February 2009 and after completion of the emergency leave, the detenu did not return to prison. However, the detenu was later

arrested in connection with a crime committed u/s.302 and 379 IPC on 05.11.2009.

(4)Having regard to the fact that the detenu was arrested and undergoing sentence committing heinous crime and his past conduct will certainly justify the order of the 2nd respondent, which is impugned in the present writ petition, refusing to grant leave, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order.

(5)Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. (6)However, if the petitioner has genuine reasons for grant of ordinary leave to the detenu/husband of the petitioner herein in future, it will be open to the respondents to consider to grant ordinary leave to the detenu with escort.

[S.S.S.R., J.] [S.M, J.] 23.11.2023 AP Internet : Yes To 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore.

2.The Superintendent Central Prison, Coimbatore.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

S.S. SUNDAR, J., and SUNDER MOHAN, J., AP W.P. No.32907/2023 23.11.2023