AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 283 wordsG.K.Ilanthiraiyan, J
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent, dated 29.04.2026, rejecting the request made by the petitioner seeking three days emergency leave for her husband.
The petitioner's husband is a convict in Spl.S.C.No.58 of 2022 on the file of the Third Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and Section 120(B) IPC. The petitioner, being the wife of the convict, applied for emergency leave for her husband to attend the ear-piercing ceremony of their children, scheduled to be held on 24.05.2026. The request for emergency leave was, however, rejected by the second respondent.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ear-piercing ceremony of the petitioner's children is fixed on 24.05.2026 and the presence of her husband is necessary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant emergency leave for three days, i.e., from 23.05.2026 to 25.05.2026, to the convict to attend the ear-piercing ceremony of his children.
In view of the above, the order passed by the second respondent, dated 29.04.2026, is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed to grant three days emergency leave, i.e., from 23.05.2026 to 25.05.2026, without escort, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The convict shall report before the Inspector of Police, Silaiman Police Station, Madurai District, daily at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m. during the period of leave; and
(ii) The Inspector of Police, Silaiman Police Station, Madurai District, shall ensure that the convict surrenders before the second respondent upon completion of the emergency leave.