VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

Paanjaali v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Its.,

DISPOSED OF
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
30 April 2026
Bench
N. Anand Venkatesh, K.K. Ramakrishnan
Case no.
WP Crl.(MD) 2531/2026

Follow Madras High CourtFollow N. Anand VenkateshFollow K.K. Ramakrishnan

Judgment

O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.] This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the second respondent made in No. 295/Utha.2/2026 dated

23.03.2026 and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to grant 21 days ordinary leave to the petitioner's husband, who is presently serving sentence at Central Prison, Madurai.

¶2Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3.The petitioner's husband was convicted for the offence under the POCSO Act and he is presently serving sentence at Central Prison, Madurai. He was suffering from fistula in ano. Hence, fistulectomy has to be performed. Under such circumstances, a representation came to be given seeking for 21 days ordinary leave.

¶4The second respondent rejected the representation through the impugned proceedings dated 23.03.2026 on the ground that there is one previous case pending against the convict in C.C.No.330 of 2014 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Rajapalayam. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

¶5Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that post-fistulectomy surgery, the convict will require convalescence and proper care, we are inclined to interfere with the proceedings of the second respondent dated 23.03.2026 and the same is hereby set aside. There shall be a direction to the second respondent to grant 21 days ordinary leave to the convict subject to the condition that he will report before the fourth respondent daily at 06.00 p.m., during the entire period of ordinary leave. Apart from that condition, the convict is permitted to submit the sureties before the Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai, instead of executing the sureties before the Tahsildar and two sureties shall be the family members of the convict. The other conditions imposed by the second respondent shall stand as it is.

¶6This Writ Petition (Criminal) is disposed in the above terms. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[N.A.V., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.]

30.04.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No TSG Copy to

1.The Director General of Prison, Directorate of the Central Prison, Tamil Nadu Prison, Veanals Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Department of Prisons and Correctional Service, Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison Campus, Madurai District.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam South Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. N.ANANDoVENKATESHo,oJ. AND oK.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,oJoo. TSG W.P.Crl.(MD).No.2531oofo2026

30.04.2026

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN W.P.Crl.(MD).No.2531 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD).No.615 of 2026 Paanjaali ....... Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its the Director General of Prison, Directorate of the Central Prison, Tamil Nadu Prison, Veanals Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. 2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Department of Prisons and Correctional Service, Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison Campus, Madurai District. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam South Police Station, Virudhunagar District. ...... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order in No. 295/Utha.2/2026 dated 23.03.2026 on the file of Respondent No. 2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direction directing the second respondent to grant ordinary leave without escort for the period of 21 days to the petitioner's husband, namely, K.Veniskumar, s/o.Karuppaiah (convict prisoner CP No. 6100 (PID No.46549) confined at Central Prison, Madurai, within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthu Mangaleswaran For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.