Madras High Court
WP CRL.(MD)/5809/2026 of Suseela Vs The Deputy Inspector General on 26 October 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE THIRUMAGAL
CHANDRASEKAR
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5809 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011529222026}
Suseela
W/o, Subramani,
No.158, Ezhil Nagari,
Gandhigramam,
Karur District-639004
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons Trichy Range, Race Course Road, Trichy-620 023.
2. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison,Trichy-620 020
3. The Inspector of Police
Pasupathipalayam Police Station,
Karur District
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records relating to the Impugned Order passed by the first respondent vide her proceedings in No.RO TRY.240/2026-G1, Dated 18.06.2026
Quash the same as illegal and void, consequently grant 21 days ordinary leave without police escort to Saravanan S/o.Subramani, (PID
No.256075) confined at Central Prison, Trichy forthwith considering the
representation dated 21.04.2026.
For Petitioner(s)
:M/s C.Karthikeyan
For Respondent(s)
:Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pnadiyan
Additional 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
(Order of the Court was made by M.Nirmal Kumar J.)
The petitioner/the mother of the convict prisoner, namely, Saravanan, son of Subramanian, PID No.256075 confined in Central Prison, Trichy, had sent a representation on 21.04.2026 seeking for 21 days ordinary leave for her son to take care and provide help for her husband/the father of the convict prisoner, who is suffering from health ailments including prostatomegaly and is also suffering from diabetic retinopathy. The petitioner’s representation was rejected solely on the ground that the probation officer’s report has not been obtained and hence the petitioner filed the present petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the mother of the convict petitioner. The petitioner’s son was convicted by the learned Principal District and Session Judge in S.C.No.7 of 2021 by judgment dated 19.04.2022 and sentenced him to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The petitioner’s son had filed Crl.A(MD)No. 312 of 2025 and the appeal was dismissed on
18.12.2025 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial court. The petitioner's husband, Subramani is suffering from prostatomegaly and he is also suffering from diabetic retinopathy for the past six years and he is undergoing regular treatment in Government Hospital at Karur and he was taking treatment from the year 2016 till date. The petitioner requests her son's presence for better medical treatment to her husband/the father of the convict prisoner.
3. In support of his contention, the learned counsel had produced the medical certificate issued by Malar Hospital and the medical details of Subramani, who is the father of the convict prisoner from the year 2016 to 2026.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that the Superintendent of Central Prison had forwarded the the representation of the petitioner to the first respondent and the Probation Officer had given a report after making an enquiry with Saroja, who is the sister of the convict prisoner and found that their father namely, Subramani was not seriously ill as projected and represented by the petitioner. Hence, the representation was rejected. But the Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that as per Rule 20 of the Prison
Manual, the petitioner is eligible for 21 days leave. He also submitted that the convict prisoner had completed four years of sentence so far.
5. A perusal of the impugned order would show that though the report of the Probation Officer is called for, the same has not been received.
6. Considering the submissions and perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioner’s husband/the father of the convict prisoner is not in good health. Hence, we are inclined to direct the respondents to grant leave without police escort.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The respondents are directed to grant 21 days ordinary leave to the petitioner without escort to the petitioner namely Saravanan S/o.Subramani,(PID No.256075) confined at Central Prison, Trichy.
(ii) During the said leave period, the convict prisoner shall report before the third respondent, daily at 10.00 a.m., without fail.
(iii) He shall report back to the second respondent, on completion of the leave period, without fail.
(iv) The petitioner shall produce all necessary documents, along with a copy of this order, before the jail authorities.
(v) During the leave period, the convict prisoner shall abide by all the conditions prescribed in the Jail Manual.
(vi) The convict shall utilize the leave only for the reason for which it has been granted and shall not partake in any other activities.
(vii) The concerned Superintendent of Prison/jail authorities are directed to impose other conditions as contemplated under Rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules,1982.
(viii) No costs. (M.N.K.,J.) (T.M.C.,J.) 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No CM
To
1. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons Trichy Range Race Course Road Trichy-620 023
2. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison,Trichy-620 020
3. The Inspector of Police Pasupathipalayam Police Station Karur District
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. AND THIRUMAGAL CHANDRASEKAR, J. CM WP Crl.(MD) No. 5809 of 2026 26-10-2026