Ramji v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By The Secretary To The Government Of Tamil Nadu,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 03.11.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Ramji ... Petitioner/Son of the detenu vs.
The State represented by its 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home (Prison IV) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Madurai Range, Central Prison, Madurai- 625 001.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai- 625 001.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, Palayamkottai - 627 002.
5.The Inspector of Police, C-5 SIPCOT Police Station, Thoothukudi-628 902.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition Criminal is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order bearing No.975/VuTha.2/2025, dated 22.09.2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consecutively direct the respondents 1 to 3 to grant ordinary leave for 28 days without escort to the detenue Balasubramanian S/O.Ramasamy, aged about 63 years PID No.1839, detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manoharan For Respondents : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Judgment was made by P.VELMURUGAN. J.,) The petitioner, who is the son of a convict prisoner bearing PID No.1839, confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to
challenge the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 22.09.2025, in No.975/VuTha.2/2025,.
2.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 3.Though the convict prisoner has filed ordinary leave application before the jail authorities, the same was granted for 28 days with escort. Challenging the escort given to the convict prisoner, this present writ petition is filed.
4.Since the convict prisoner has been convicted for the heinous offences, he is not entitled for getting any privilege without any escort. 5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the crime involved by the Convict Prisoner, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the second respondent.
6.In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. (P.V., J) (L.V.G., J) 03.11.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No vsg
To, 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home (Prison IV) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Madurai Range, Central Prison, Madurai- 625 001.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai- 625 001.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, Palayamkottai - 627 002.
5.The Inspector of Police, C-5 SIPCOT Police Station, Thoothukudi-628 902.
6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
P.VELMURUGAN, J and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
vsg 03.11.2025