← Library
Madras High Court/965/2025dismissed

Kannammal v. The State Rep By Its

2025-11-134 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 13.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN Kannammal ... Petitioner

Versus

1.The State Rep by its Home Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009 2.The Additional Director General of Police (Prison) Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison Vellore Zone, Vellore 4.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Cuddalore - 607 001 5.The Inspector of Police Tittakudi Police Station Cudalore District.

.. Respondents 1/4

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order RO/VLR/594/2025-CAMP(A) dated 30-07-2025 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant parole for 28 days without escort to the petitioners son named Paramasivam, Son of Murugesan (Convicted Prisoner No.11305) aged 45 years now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore before the Court and further directing the respondents to consider him immediately for the parole and for consequential orders.

For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Amirthalingam For Respondents :

Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) The petitioner challenges the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's request for granting ordinary leave of 28 days and consequently direct the respondents to grant parole for 28 days without escort to the petitioners son named Paramasivam, S/o. Murugesan (Convicted Prisoner No.11305) aged 45 years now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore before the Court and further directing the respondents to consider him immediately for the parole and for consequential orders.

2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that he has already availed ordinary leave from 24.01.2025 to 2/4

20.02.2025 for this year with escort at the orders of this Court, therefore, the the petitioner's son cannot be granted ordinary leave.

3. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we find that the petitioner has already availed ordinary leave of 28 days for this year. As per Rule 22(2)(c) of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, the petitioner is entitled to 28 days, since, he has served 11 years and the leave for the current year is fully exhausted by the petitioner, therefore, once again the question of granting ordinary leave to the petitioner does not arise at all. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the third respondent and accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. No costs.

[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 13.11.2025 Index: Yes/No dhk 3/4

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J., AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J., dhk To, 1.The Home Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009 2.The Additional Director General of Police (Prison) Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison Vellore Zone, Vellore 4.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Cuddalore - 607 001 5.The Inspector of Police Tittakudi Police Station Cudalore District.

6.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

13.11.2025 4/4