Prisoner Can Be Granted Ordinary/Emergency Leave During Pendency Of Criminal Appeal Provided He Is Not Facing Trial In Any Other Case: Madras HC

The full bench of Justice SM Subramaniam, Justice TV Thamilselvi, and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that as per Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982, the prison authority was empowered to grant ordinary leave. The court however clarified that if the prisoner is facing trial in any other case, the prison authorities could reject his leave application in limine.

“However, it is clarified that, if a prisoner is facing trial in any other case while undergoing the conviction period, then the Prison Authorities are empowered to reject the application in limine by exercising the powers conferred under Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. To reiterate, a prisoner convicted in one case and facing criminal trial in other case is not eligible to avail leave from the hands of the Prison Authorities,” the court said.

Siding with an observation of a division bench of Madras High Court in Latha v. State, the court observed that Rule 35 states that no prisoner, on whom a trial was pending, could not be granted leave. The court noted that the language used in the Rules is “pending trial” and not “pending appeal”. Thus, the court said that the rules would not bar a prisoner who had an appeal pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court.

“Rule 35 deals with “Pending Cases”. Accordingly, no prisoner on whom a case is pending trial have been granted leave. The language employed under Rule 35 “pending trial” indicates that the said rule has no application with reference to criminal appeals pending either before the High Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,” the court observed.

The court also observed that as per the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, a duty and responsibility was cast upon the prison authorities to produce the prisoner before the court at the time of trial and thus, the object of prohibiting his leave pending trial was to ensure his presence before trial court. Thus, the court held that the term ”pending trial” could not be equated with appeal.

The full bench was answering a reference regarding the interpretation of Rule 35. Another issue that the court dealt with was whether the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982 placed an embargo on the grant of ordinary leave under Rule 22 as the explanation to Rule 22 states that the period of actual imprisonment shall be counted from the date of admission to prison as convict and not the date of arrest and whether the period of incarceration during remand or during trial could be counted while determining the length of sentence suffered by the convict?

The court observed that a remand prisoner could not be equated with a convicted prisoner as he was under judicial custody. The court remarked that the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules dealt with granting leave to the convict prisoner and not the remand prisoner. Thus, the court noted that considering the period of incarceration during remand or during the trial did not arise as neither the prison authorities nor the courts were empowered under the Rules to consider the same.

The court also noted that as far as remand prisoners were considered, the court had remanded the prisoner until such time as required under law and thus the court alone was empowered to grant them bail or leave. The court held that Prison Authorities were not empowered to grant parole or leave under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. D. Selvam, Mr. S. Manoharan, Mr. S. Srikanth, Mr. SMA. Jinnah

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinna State Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr. R. Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. A. Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. E. Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: T Ramalakshmi v. The State and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 54

Case No: W.P.(MD).No.9491 of 2024