2026:MHC:2892 WP Crl. No. 1044 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN WP Crl. No. 1044 of 2026 and WP.MP.(Crl.) No.344 of 2026 Shanmugam S/o.Arunachalam, No. 6/63, Karunai Nagar, Jalakandapuram, Mettur, Salem 636 501. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Represented by The Deputy Inspector General of Prison Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore 641 018. 2. The Superintendent Salem Central Prison, Salem 636 007. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records connected with impugned order dated. 11.12.2025 in proceeding No. CP-SLM/1014/2025 -R4(JA) passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to grant ordinary leave for 30 days without escort to the detenue, Arunachalam S/o.Annamalai aged about 70 years bearing PID No. 314446 confined at Central Prison, Salem. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2892 WP Crl. No. 1044 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 5 For Petitioner(s): Ms.S.Sadhana For Respondent(s): Mr. C.R. Malarvannan, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl. Side) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) The petitioner is the son of one Annamalai aged about 70 years who has been confined in Central Prison, Salem by way of a judgment dated 26.02.2021. He has appealed against the conviction in A.No.295 of 2023 and the appeal is pending before this Court. As on date, he has undergone total sentence of 5 years 3 months and 28 days. The petitioner’s application for ordinary leave of 30 days without escort has come to be rejected by impugned order dated 11.12.2025 as the Probation Officer found that the reasons set out in the petition seeking leave are incorrect. 2.The authorities have also ascertained that the victim of the offences for which the convict was convicted, has objection to the convict being granted leave, as she resides in the same area. 3.We have heard Ms.S.Sadhana, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl. Side) for respondents. 4.We are not inclined to intervene in the impugned order as discretion has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2892 WP Crl. No. 1044 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 5 been exercised by the authorities based on the report of the Probation Officer and no contrary material has been provided to us to justify an alternate view being taken. 5.Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the convict and his family will identify an alternative place where the convict would go when on leave in order to get over the objections posed by the victim and her family. 6.Let the authorities take a view in this regard. Hence, while confirming the impugned order, we grant liberty to the petitioner / convict to approach the authorities by way of a new petition setting out details of an alternative place where the convict may avail leave. 7.This writ petition is dismissed with liberty. Miscellaneous Petition (Crl.) is closed. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 15-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking Neutral Citation: Yes DP https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2892 WP Crl. No. 1044 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 5 To 1. The State Represented by The Deputy Inspector General of Prison Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore 641 018. 2. The Superintendent Salem Central Prison, Salem 636 007. 3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2892 WP Crl. No. 1044 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 5 DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. DP WP Crl. No. 1044 of 2026 15-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis