Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, wife of a life convict, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 5.2.2025 passed by the second respondent rejecting the convict’s request for 30 days ordinary leave (parole) and to direct his release on parole. The convict had applied for leave to attend to his ailing mother and arrange for his children’s future. The rejection was based on the ground that while on earlier parole, he was involved in a case registered in Crime No.67 of 2022 for offences under Sections 294(b), 324, and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner contended that the said criminal case had already been disposed of: a petition for compounding under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed on 31.5.2023, but subsequently the trial court recorded evidence and acquitted the convict on 26.6.2023. The court examined the judgment of the trial court and confirmed the acquittal. On the date of consideration of the leave application, no criminal case was pending against the convict. The court held that citing a case that had already been disposed of was an improper reason to reject the application. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to consider the representation dated 16.12.2024 afresh and pass orders within two weeks. The writ petition was allowed, with the court favoring the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Prisons – Parole – Ordinary Leave – Tamil Nadu Prison Rules – Rejection of leave application on the ground that a criminal case was registered against the convict while on previous parole – Held, when the said criminal case had already been disposed of and the convict acquitted, citing it as a reason for rejection is not proper – Impugned order quashed and respondents directed to consider representation afresh (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of ordinary leave (parole) to a life convict on the ground of a pending criminal case is valid when the said criminal case has already been disposed of resulting in acquittal?
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.2.2025 is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the representation dated 16.12.2024 afresh and pass orders within a period of two weeks from today.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Rejection of parole based on criminal case already disposed of is not valid
- parole cannot be denied on the basis of a non-existent pending case
- authorities must consider leave application afresh.
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 228
G. Jayachandran, R. Poornima
Citation not available, 2025:MHC:839
J. Vijayaraja for Petitioner; A. Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents
1.The Director General of Prison, 2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, 3.The Superintendent of Prison
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the rejection of parole and to grant ordinary leave.
Remedy Sought
Quash the order dated 5.2.2025 rejecting 30 days ordinary leave and direct release of the convict on parole for 30 days or as fixed by the court.
Filing Reason
The second respondent rejected the convict's representation for ordinary leave on the ground that a criminal case (Cr.No.67/2022) was registered against him while on earlier parole, but the petitioner contended that the case had been disposed of and the convict acquitted.
Previous Decisions
The representation for leave was rejected by the second respondent vide proceedings dated 5.2.2025; no prior court order on this specific issue.
Issues
Whether rejection of ordinary leave to a life convict on the ground of a pending criminal case is valid when the said criminal case had already been disposed of resulting in acquittal?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the criminal case had been disposed of and the convict acquitted, that the convict had previously been granted leave by the court and reported back without any issue, so the pendency of the case cannot be a bar.
Respondents relied on the registration of the case to reject leave but later provided the judgment copy showing the acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi
Rejection of parole on the ground of a pending criminal case is improper if the said case has already been disposed of and resulted in acquittal; the authorities must consider the application afresh without relying on such disposed case.
Judgment Excerpts
Considering the fact that on the date of considering the leave application, there is no criminal case pending against the convict. While so, citing the case which had already been disposed of is not a proper reason for rejecting the application. Therefore this Court finds that the order, dated 5.2.2025 passed by the Prison Authorities which is impugned in this Writ Petition is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.
Procedural History
The convict applied for ordinary leave, which was rejected by the second respondent on 5.2.2025. The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the rejection. The court adjourned to verify the status of the criminal case, and both sides provided the judgment copy showing acquittal on 26.6.2023. After hearing, the court allowed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 294(b), 324, 506(ii)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 320
- Constitution of India: 226
