Elangovan v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA Elangovan ... Petitioner -vs1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Trichy Range, Race Course Road, Trichy-620 023.
2.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy-620 020.
3.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Musiri Police Station, Trichy District.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide proceedings in No.RO.TRY/505/2025-CA dated 24.09.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to grant 28 days Ordinary Leave without police escort to the petitioner namely Elangovan, S/o.Nallthambi, Life Convict Prisoner, PID No.886 confined at Central Prison, Trichy.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.S.Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 24.09.2025, thereby, rejecting the request made by the petitioner seeking Ordinary Leave.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was convicted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur in S.C.No.18 of 2012, for the offence punishable under Sections 449, 302 r/w 34 IPC and 394 r/w 397 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment. He is
languishing imprisonment for more than 11 years. While being so, the petitioner applied for 28 days Ordinary Leave to arrange finance for his son's education. The said representation was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 392 r/w 120(b), 394 r/w 397 and 392, 397 r/w 34 IPC and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for Ordinary Leave as per Rule 21(b) of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rule, 1982.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not availed any ordinary leave. Now, petitioner's family is suffering from financial crisis and hence, the presence of the petitioner is very much necessary to arrange the finance for his family members and also for his son's education.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is not only convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 397 IPC, but he was also convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
302(3 counts), 394 r/w 397 IPC in S.C.No.18 of 2012 by the judgment dated 10.03.2014. Further, he was convicted for the offence under Section 120-B, 449 r/w 120-B, 392 r/w 397-B, 302(3 counts) in S.C.No. 94 of 2012 by the judgment dated 05.06.2017 and he was also convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 404 of IPC in S.C.No.104 of 2017. That apart, Rule 21(b) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rule 1982 does not permits the petitioner for granting Ordinary Leave. If at all any emergency situation, the petitioner can very well apply for Emergency Leave, that too, for one or two days.
5. Therefore, the request made by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the first respondent and there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. [G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.] 08.01.2026 am NCC :Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No
To 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Trichy Range, Race Course Road, Trichy-620 023.
2.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy-620 020.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Musiri Police Station, Trichy District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
AND R. POORNIMA,J.
am 08.01.2026