Rajathi v. The State Represented By Its,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 17.02.2026 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN and W.P.M.P.(Crl).No.507 of 2025 Rajathi .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The State represented by its.

The Director General of Prison, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

2. The Superintendent, Puzhal Central Prison - I, Puzhal - 600 066.

.. Respondents Writ Petition (Criminal) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with impugned order dated 14.02.2025 in proceedings No.705438/Thaku2/2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to grant emergency leave for 15 days without escort to the detenue, Shamprakash S/o. Sagayaraj, aged about 27 years bearing convict No.10362 (PID) 388359) confined at Central Prison - I, Puzhal.

1/4

For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Sadhana For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Addl. Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John ******

ORDER

(The Order of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan, J) This petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking directions to the respondents, to grant emergency leave for 15 days to her son, who is the life convict prisoner namely Shamprakash S/o.Sagayaraj, aged about 27 years, Convict No.10362, PID No.388359, detained at Central Prison-I, Puzhal. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is mother of the detenue, who is the life convict prisoner. The petitioner, being the aged lady, facing medical ailments and struggling to meet out the medical expenses and hence the presence of the detenue is necessary to mobilize funds. But the respondents have rejected the petitioner's representation without any valid reason. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are three cases pending against the life convict prisoner and hence as per the provisions of Rule 2/4

35 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, he is eligible to avail leave. In the impugned order itself the respondents have clearly stated the reason for rejection. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and perused the materials on record. It is seen that there are three cases pending against the detenue. Further as per the report of the Probation Officer, the petitioner has another son to look after the petitioner. Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, strictly prohibits granting ordinary leave to a convicted prisoner, who has another criminal case pending against them. Therefore the respondents rejected the petitioner's representation. We do not find any perversity in the impugned order and hence the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stands closed.

(P.V., J) (M.J.R., J) 17.02.2026 cgi To

1. The Director General of Prison, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Puzhal Central Prison - I, Puzhal - 600 066.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 3/4

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

cgi and W.P.M.P.(Crl).No.507 of 2025 17.02.2026 4/4