Case Note & Summary
The case involved a writ petition filed by a life convict, Suresh @ Sathiyaraj, seeking 40 days of ordinary leave from Central Prison, Trichy, on the grounds of his father's health issues. The petitioner had been convicted under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 394 r/w 397, and his request for leave was denied by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons based on Rule 21(b) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, which prohibits granting leave to convicts of certain serious offences. The petitioner argued that he had already served the sentence for the offences under Section 394 r/w 397, as his sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and thus the bar should not apply. The court examined the submissions from both sides, noting that the petitioner had undergone 14 years and 22 days of imprisonment as of December 31, 2025. The court referenced a previous judgment that allowed leave under similar circumstances when the relevant sentence had been served. Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the grant of 28 days of ordinary leave to the petitioner, subject to certain reporting conditions. The decision underscored the importance of considering the actual time served when applying the rules regarding leave for convicts.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Grant of Leave - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court considered the petitioner's request for ordinary leave despite the bar under Rule 21(b) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, and found that the petitioner had already served the sentence for the relevant offences. The court directed the grant of leave, emphasizing that the bar should not apply in this case (Paras 10-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to ordinary leave despite the bar under Rule 21(b) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.
Final Decision
The court set aside the impugned order and directed the grant of 28 days ordinary leave to the petitioner, subject to conditions of daily reporting and sureties.
Law Points
- Article 226
- Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules
- 1982
- Section 394 IPC
- Section 397 IPC
- concurrent sentences
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (06) 101
W.P.CRL.(MD) No.2749 of 2026
N. ANAND VENKATESH, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Mr.K.A.S.Prabhu, Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Superintendent of Prison, Superintendent of Police, Inspector of Police
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the denial of ordinary leave to a life convict.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the denial of leave and grant 40 days of ordinary leave.
Filing Reason
The petitioner claimed his father's health issues necessitated his presence.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner's request for leave was previously denied based on Rule 21(b) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to ordinary leave despite the bar under Rule 21(b) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.
Whether the time served by the petitioner for the relevant offences affects the application of the bar.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that he had served the sentence for the offences under Section 394 r/w 397, thus the bar should not apply.
The respondents maintained that the bar under Rule 21(b) was applicable due to the nature of the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the bar under Rule 21(b) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 does not apply when the convict has already served the sentence for the relevant offences, allowing for the possibility of granting ordinary leave.
Judgment Excerpts
The representation made by the petitioner came to be rejected by the first respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 07.04.2026.
We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.
The impugned proceedings of the first respondent vide proceedings in No.RO/TRY/188/2026-CA dated 07.04.2026 is hereby set aside.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his request for ordinary leave, which was denied based on the bar under Rule 21(b) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules: Rule 21(b)
- Indian Penal Code: Section 394, Section 397, Section 302, Section 449
