Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 29799 (MAD)

Chandiran v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons

WP Crl./1060/2026 · 2026-06-05

Anita Sumanth, Sunder Mohan

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:MHC:1979 WP Crl. No. 1060 of 2026 __________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN WP Crl. No. 1060 of 2026 Chandiran S/o. Pellakki Kavudar (Late), No.14/15, B-1, Thenodu Village, Bengal Mattam Post, Nilgiri District - 643 204. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons Chennai Range, Prison Head Quarters, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 2. The Superintendent of Prisons Central Prison, Coimbatore. ..Respondent(s) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in the order No.85/mu.uu/2025 dated 04-02-2026 passed by respondent No.1 and quashing the same, and directing the respondents to grant ordinary leave 30 days by without escort for the petitioners son namely Sridhar @ Babu S/o. Chandiran, aged about 47 years, Pid No. 243862, Convict Prisoner, Central Prison, Coimbatore and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Ms.S.Nadhiya For Respondent(s): Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, Counsel For Government Of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:1979 WP Crl. No. 1060 of 2026 __________ ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) We have heard Ms.Nadhiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for the respondents. 2. The challenge is to order of rejection of Ordinary Leave of 30 days without escort. The reasons assigned is that the convict had not completed one year mandatory period as per the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 after completion of the earlier leave. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the date of order is 04.02.2026 when in fact the convict had completed one year. This is factually incorrect. The period of one year had only been completed in April 2026 and hence as on date, the convict is eligible to apply leave. Hence the convict being at liberty, may apply to the authorities and application if made will be considered in accordance with extant rules and regulations. 4. With this, this habeas corpus petition is closed. No costs. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 05-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes ssm https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:1979 WP Crl. No. 1060 of 2026 __________ To 1. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons Chennai Range, Prison Head Quarters, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 2. The Superintendent of Prisons Central Prison, Coimbatore. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:1979 WP Crl. No. 1060 of 2026 __________ DR.ANITA SUMANTH J. AND SUNDER MOHAN J. ssm WP Crl. No. 1060 of 2026 05-06-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis