Muniyasamy v. The Deputy Inspector General Of Prisons,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN W.P.Crl.(MD).No.2063 of 2026 and W.M.P.Crl.(MD) No.514 of 2026 Muniyasamy ......

Petitioner Vs.

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, O/o. the Deputy Inspector General of Prison and Correctional Services Department, Madurai Region, Madurai.

2.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Kulathur Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

...... Respondents

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the order passed by the 1st respondent in No.782/Utha.2/2025, dated 19.01.2026 and quash the same and consequently directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to grant 28 days ordinary leave without escort to the petitioner's father namely Andivel, S/o.Kamatchi (C.P.No.3200, PID No. 34526) now confined under the Central Prison, Madurai. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Srikanth For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.] This petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent made in No.782/Utha.2/2025, dated 19.01.2026 and for a direction to the first and second respondents to grant 28 days of ordinary leave without escort to the petitioner's father, who is a life convict undergoing sentence at Central Prison, Madurai.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. It is seen from the impugned order that the detenue was granted ordinary leave on 31.01.2003 and the detenue went missing till the year 2017. With great difficulty, he was secured and once again confined in prison. Under such circumstances, the first respondent has refused to grant ordinary leave to the detenue, considering his past conduct and the relevant rules in the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the first respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that emergency leave had been granted to the detenue twice and he had complied with the conditions and returned to prison on time.

5. The ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration, in view of the past conduct of the detenue. It disentitles him from being considered for ordinary leave. Therefore, in case of any emergency, a representation can be made, setting out the grounds and the same will be considered by the first respondent in accordance with law. Except giving this clarity, we do not find any ground to interfere with the proceedings of the first respondent.

6. This Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. [N.A.V., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.] 15.04.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Indu To 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, O/o. the Deputy Inspector General of Prison and Correctional Services Department, Madurai Region, Madurai.

2.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Kulathur Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

Indu W.P.Crl.(MD).No.2063 of 2026 15.04.2026