Madras High Court
WP CRL.(MD)/5231/2026 of Mahalakshmi Vs The Deputy Inspector General on 16 September 2026
W.P.Crl.(MD)No.5231 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.09.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE M.D.SUMATHI
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 5231 of 2026
{CNR: HCMD011303982026}
Case QR
Mahalakshmi
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Trichy Range, O/o. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison and Correctional Services, Trichy Central Prison Campus, Trichy District.
2.The Superintendent of Prison,
Trichy Central Prison,
Trichy District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Pudukottai,
O/o. The Superintendent of Police,
Pudukottai District.
4.State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by Inspector of Police,
Aranthangi Police Station,
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:12:35 pm )
W.P.Crl.(MD)No.5231 of 2026
O/o. The Inspector of Police,
Pudukottai District.
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling of impugned order issued by Respondent No.1 in No.RO.TRY/259/2026-CA dated 15.05.2026 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to grant Ordinary Leave for the period 21 days to the petitioner's husband Saravanan, S/o.Kuppusamy (PID No.428658) who is a life convict prisoner, languishing in Tiruchirappalli Central Prison.
For Petitioner
: Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah
For Respondents : Mr.D.Venkatesh,
Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) Heard both sides.
2. The writ petitioner's husband suffered life sentence for having committed the offence under POCSO Act, 2012. He is presently confined in Central Prison. Trichy, He sought twenty one days ordinary leave. His request was rejected.
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:12:35 pm )
W.P.Crl.(MD)No.5231 of 2026
3. In our view, it was rightly rejected. It was because he had not completed three years by then. But today, ie., 16.09.2026, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly stated that the prisoner had completed three years prison on 16.08.2026. He is therefore eligible for 21 days ordinary leave. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that if a fresh application is submitted, it would be considered.
4. We are of the view that this procedural formality can be skipped. PO report had already been obtained and it is in favour of the prisoner. We therefore direct the first respondent to grant twenty one days ordinary to the prisoner without escort. But during the period when the prisoner is on leave, he should sign daily before the fourth respondent at 08.00 pm. The prisoner shall not enter place where the victim is residing. He shall not come across her or have any kind of interaction with her or her relatives. It is open to the first respondent to impose any other appropriate condition also.
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:12:35 pm )
W.P.Crl.(MD)No.5231 of 2026
5. As per Rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1962, the surety bonds of the sureties should be executed before the jurisdictional Tahsildar.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are some practical difficulties in fulfilling that formality.
7. Our attention is drawn by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to the order dated 20.12.2023 in W.P.(MD)No.27789 of 2023 wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench had specifically held that the revenue Tahsildars who are acting pursuant to Rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules and taking bond under Form II vide Rule 25 of said Rules, shall not insist on ownership of immovable properties or shall not insist on immovable properties in any manner qua sureties.
8. We therefore direct the jurisdictional Tahsildar that he should not insist on patta or any other document relating to property. If the surety produces the Aadhaar card, Ration Card and self-attested photos, that should be taken as sufficient sufficient. We further direct that the
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:12:35 pm )
W.P.Crl.(MD)No.5231 of 2026 verification process and sending surety bonds to the Superintendent of Prison should be done within a period of one week after the submission of the surety bonds.
9. This writ petition is allowed accordingly. (G.R.S. J.,) & (M.D.S. J.,) 16.09.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To:
1. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Trichy Range, O/o. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison and Correctional Services, Trichy Central Prison Campus, Trichy District.
2. The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy District.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai District.
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:12:35 pm )
W.P.Crl.(MD)No.5231 of 2026
4. The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, O/o. The Inspector of Police, Pudukottai District.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:12:35 pm )
W.P.Crl.(MD)No.5231 of 2026
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:12:35 pm )
W.P.Crl.(MD)No.5231 of 2026 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and M.D.SUMATHI
, J.
ias W.P.Crl.(MD)No.5231 of 2026
16.09.2026
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:12:35 pm )