Court rules past abscondence beyond five years cannot bar leave; interprets Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules to allow split 40-day annual leave without mandatory one-year gap between installments
In a significant judgment dated October 12, 2026, the Madras High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Dr. Anita Sumanth and Sunder Mohan) allowed a writ petition filed by S. Babu, a convict imprisoned for over 18 years in Central Prison, Puzhal. The Court directed the prison authorities to grant the petitioner 14 days of ordinary leave without escort, setting aside the prison authorities' earlier refusal based on multiple grounds.
The petitioner, convicted in 1992 and confirmed in 2001, had been denied leave on three primary grounds: a pending criminal case, past abscondence during earlier leaves, and a purported bar under Rule 22(3) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (hereinafter "the Rules") requiring a one-year gap after availing leave.
The Court examined these grounds meticulously:
1. Pending Criminal Case Bar (Rule 35)
Though the authorities initially cited a pending case (C.C. No. 70 of 2016) as a bar to leave, the Court noted that the petitioner had already been convicted under Section 224 IPC and served the sentence. Thus, the ground for refusal under Rule 35 was no longer valid.
2. Past Abscondence and Circular Dated 15.12.2017
The petitioner had absconded twice earlier-in 1997 and 2004-after being granted leave without escort. The prison authorities relied on a 2017 Circular instructing not to grant leave to prisoners who absconded and faced cases under Section 224 IPC within the preceding five years. The Court clarified that the five-year bar had long expired by 2009, and past abscondence beyond this period cannot operate as a perpetual bar. The petitioner had also availed leave multiple times subsequently without any misconduct, negating this ground of refusal.
3. Interpretation of Rule 22(2)(c) and Rule 22(3) - Leave Eligibility and Interval
The most crucial aspect of the judgment was the Court's interpretation of Rule 22 concerning ordinary leave for life convicts or those sentenced beyond 14 years. Rule 22(2)(c) permits an annual ordinary leave of up to 40 days, which "may be availed in one spell or two spells of any duration." Rule 22(3) mandates a one-year interval between "spells" of leave.
The authorities contended that "spell" in both provisions meant the same, implying a one-year gap even between two installments of the same 40-day annual leave. This interpretation would effectively force prisoners to take the entire leave in one continuous stretch.
The Court rejected this view, holding that the word "spell" in the proviso to Rule 22(2)(c) must be read as "instalment," differentiating it from the "spell" in Rule 22(3). Hence, a prisoner may avail the 40 days of annual leave in two instalments within one year without the mandatory one-year gap between those instalments. The one-year interval under Rule 22(3) applies only after completion of the full annual leave entitlement.
This interpretation preserves the intent of the Rules by allowing flexibility in availing leave without unnecessary hardship to prisoners.
Order and Directions:
The Court directed the prison authorities to grant the petitioner 14 days of ordinary leave without escort from October 13 to October 26, 2026, subject to conditions including surrender to the prison after leave, reporting to the local police station every alternate day, and using leave only for the intended purpose.
This judgment not only benefits the petitioner but also clarifies important procedural aspects about ordinary leave for life convicts under Tamil Nadu prison rules, ensuring humane treatment while maintaining public safety.
Bottom Line:
Prison leave - Ordinary leave - Past abscondence cannot operate as a perpetual bar - Circular dated 15.12.2017 bars leave only for 5 years preceding proposed leave - For life convicts/prisoners sentenced beyond 14 years, 40 days annual ordinary leave under Rule 22(2)(c) may be availed in one stretch or two instalments within one year - One year gap under Rule 22(3) applies after completion of the annual leave entitlement and not between the two instalments.
Statutory provision(s):
Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 - Rule 22(1)(c), Rule 22(2)(c) Proviso, Rule 22(3), Rule 35; Indian Penal Code Section 224
