Madras High Court
Vijaya vs The State Represented By on 4 November, 2025
Author: A.D. Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D. Jagadish Chandira
W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 28.08.2025
Pronounced on 04.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 AND W.M.P. (MD) No.18774 of 2024
Vijaya Petitioner
vs.
The State represented by
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Department of Home (Prison IV)
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Superintendent of Prisons
Trichy Central Prison
Trichy 620 020 Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order G.O. (D) No.222 dated 28.02.2024
issued by the first respondent and to quash the same and consequently,
direct the first respondent to release the detenu Murugan, S/o Kannan,
aged about 47 years, CT No.17351, confined at the Central Prison, Trichy,
prematurely, as per G.O.(Ms.) No.64 dated 01.02.2018 and G.O. (Ms.)
No.488 dated 15.11.2021.
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm )
W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024
For petitioner Mr. S. Manoharan
For respondents Mr. A. Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
-----
ORDER
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
This writ petition calls in question the legality and validity of G.O. (D) No.222, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 28.02.20241 issued by the first respondent in and by which premature release was rejected for the petitioner's son, Kannan, (CT. No. 17351) confined at the Central Prison, Trichy, and for a direction to the first respondent to release him prematurely, as per G.O. (Ms.) No.64, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 01.02.20182 and G.O. (Ms.) No.488, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 15.11.20213 .
2. The succinct facts leading to the filing of this writ petition, can be stated thus:
2.1 The petitioner's son Kannan (hereinafter “convict prisoner” for the sake of clarity and convenience) was convicted and sentenced by the 1 for short “the impugned order” 2 for short “GO 64” 3 for short “GO 488” 2/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 Sessions Court, Nagapattinam vide judgment dated 25.09.2003 in S.C.No. 100 of 2002, as detailed below:
Provision of law under Sentence which convicted 302 IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year 364 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently The aforesaid judgment was confirmed by this Court in Crl.A.No.1584 of 2003 vide judgment dated 14.06.2006.
2.2 Meanwhile, when the convict prisoner was on remand, he escaped and therefore, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 224 IPC in C.C.No.765 of 2003 vide judgment dated 11.08.2006 by the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam.
2.3 While so, according to the petitioner, since the convict prisoner had undergone the imprisonment for ineligible offfence (sentence for the offence under Section 224 IPC) and he is undergoing 3/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC, he is entitled to premature release as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. P. Veera Bhaarathi4 , the relevant paragraph of which is extracted infra.
2.4 Notwithstanding GO 64 (issued on the occasion of 100th birth anniversary of Dr.M.G. Ramachandran) as per which the life convicts who have completed 10 years of actual imprisonment as on 25.02.2018 may be released prematurely and also albeit GO 488 (issued on the occasion of 113th birth anniversary of Perarignar Anna) as per which the life convicts who have completed 10 years of actual imprisonment as on 15.09.2021 may be released prematurely, the convict prisoner was not released prematurely, though, admittedly, he had completed 15 years of incarceration as on 25.02.2018 (cut off date prescribed in GO 64) and 18 years of incarceration as on 15.09.2021 (cut off date prescribed in GO
488) and several convict prisoners were released prematurely by virtue of these two GOs.
2.5 Further, the application submitted by the convict prisoner's brother by name Arun for premature release of the convict prisoner was 4 (2019) 18 SCC 71 4/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 turned down by the impugned order, notwithstanding the recommendations of the Advisory Board and the Probation Officer. The reasons for rejection of premature release vide the impugned order are as under:
i. The co-accused Mohan (A1) was done to death in 2019 by the family members of the deceased Asirvatham, from which, it is clear that till date, revenge exists between the convict prisoner and the family of the deceased Asirvatham, which would endanger the life of the convict prisoner; and ii. the potential of the convict prisoner to commit crimes in future would be prevented by keeping him in prison.
2.6 Hence, the present writ petition seeking the relief stated in the opening paragraph.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:
i. taking into consideration the entire materials available on record and the reports of the various authorities, the Advisory 5/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 Board had recommended for premature release of the convict prisoner under the Advisory Board Scheme; hence, the first respondent ought not to have rejected the premature release of the convict prisoner;
ii. the convict prisoner, apart from having undergone well over 20 years of incarceration till the date of filing this writ petition, has also undergone rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 224 IPC (ineligible offence as per GO 64 and GO 488); thus, when the convict prisoner has already undergone the period of sentence for the ineligible offence, denial of benefit of GO 64 and GO 488 amounts to double jeopardy;
iii. the act of the first respondent in not considering the report of the Probation Officer that the victim's family is not residing in the locality and the convict prisoner is having the capacity to eke out his livelihood post his release, is not proper; iv. when the Advisory Board had recommended for premature release of the convict prisoner considering his period of 6/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 incarceration, that the offence had been committed owing to only emotional outburst and not owing to caste-based or communal motive, and that there are no adverse remarks against him during incarceration, the impugned order of rejection of the convict prisoner's premature release is sans application of mind;
v. when the convict prisoner availed 40 days of ordinary leave, that too, without escort, no untoward incident happened and when this is not disputed, the reason assigned in the impugned order that the life of the convict prisoner is at peril, if released prematurely, does not have legs to stand; vi. when several convict prisoners involved in very heinous and brutal murders have been granted premature release, denying premature release to the convict prisoner who has undergone over 20 years of imprisonment, is unjust, illegal and in violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and 7/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 vii.when no untoward incident had taken place when the convict prisoner had earlier availed 40 days of ordinary leave sans escort and moreover, when he is ready to be released prematurely at his own risk, rejecting the case of the convict prisoner on the grounds stated in the impugned order is baseless and unfounded.
4. In support of his contention that when the convict prisoner has already undergone the sentence for ineligible offence, rejecting premature release is opposed to Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and it amounts to double jeopardy, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:
i. judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Veera Bhaarathi supra;
ii. decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in P.Kaliammal vs. State and 2 others5;
iii. decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kokila vs. State and 2 others6; and iv. decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Roja Venkatesh @ Venkatesh vs. State and 2 others7.5 W.P. No.10487 of 2020 decided on 04.07.2024 6 W.P.No.18934 of 2025 decided on 23.07.2025 7 W.P.No.3062 of 2020 decided on 14.07.2021 8/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024
5. To buttress his contention that denial of premature release of a convict prisoner on the mere apprehension of a possible wrong doing by others is unreasonable, learned counsel relied on the decision of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in A. Rizana Banu vs. the State8.
6. In support of his contention that the convict prisoner did not come to the adverse notice of the prison authorities during the period of his incarceration and this should have weighed in the mind of the first respondent while considering the issue of premature release, learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zahid Hussein and others vs. State of West Bengal and another9.
7. To fortify his submission that this Court is not powerless to order direct release of the convict prisoner instead of directing the authorities to release the convict prisoner, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following:
8 H.C.P.No.1550 of 2018 decided on 04.01.2019
9 (2001) 3 SCC 750 9/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 i. decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Manikandan vs. State and another10;
ii. decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kokila, supra; and iii. decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in P. Kaliammal, supra.
8. Mr. A. Thiruvadikumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, submitted that though on the date of GO 64 and GO 488, the convict prisoner had completed the required years of imprisonment, he was found ineligible on the ground of having been convicted of the offence under Section 224 IPC. He further submitted that since the co-accused Mohan was murdered in 2019 by a member of the victim's family, the safety of the convict prisoner was taken into consideration in the impugned order and accordingly, premature release was rejected for him.
9. He further submitted that based on the report of the Superintendent of Police that there was a threat to the life of the convict prisoner, the District Collector, Trichy, did not recommend the case of the convict prisoner for premature release and hence, notwithstanding the 10 W.P. No.2068 of 2024 decided on 02.08.2024 10/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 recommendation of the Advisory Board, the first respondent rejected the convict prisoner's request for premature release vide the impugned order.
10. In reply to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court can directly order premature release of the convict prisoner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the High Court does not have powers to directly order premature release of a convict prisoner and in the event of this Court setting aside the impugned order, this Court can only order for re-consideration of the case of the convict prisoner by the Government for premature release. In support of this contention, learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in P. Veera Bhaarathi supra and Home Secretary (Prison) and others vs. H.Nilofer Nisha11.
11. In support of his contention that merely because of the fact that the convict prisoner had undergone sentence for the ineligible offence, viz., offence under Section 224 IPC, it cannot be stated that he has to be perforce released prematurely, learned Additional Public Prosecutor invited the attention of this Court to paragraph 14 of the 11 (2020) 14 SCC 161 11/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in K. Devaraj and another vs. State and others12.
12. To buttress his submission that remission cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that it is only a privilege available to a convict prisoner on fulfilment of certain conditions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on paragraph 26 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nilofer Nisha, supra.
13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and also perused the materials available before this Court, including the original records called for from the Government.
14. The facts are not in dispute.
15. The points for consideration formulated on the basis of main grounds put forward by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supporting the impugned order, are as follows:
12 W.P.No.12581, 12583 and 12664 of 2021 decided on 27.01.2022 12/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 i. Whether the conviction of the convict prisoner for the ineligible offence viz., Section 224 IPC, prescribed under GO 64 and GO 488, is a bar for grant of premature release, despite he having undergone the period of sentence for the ineligible offence?
ii. Whether the convict prisoner whose life is at peril on premature release, is entitled to such relief ?
iii. Whether the High Court, in the event of quashing the order of rejection of premature release, (impugned order in the case on hand), can order release of the convict prisoner straightaway, instead of directing the Government to order release?
16. Coming to point no.(i) of paragraph 15, supra, it is, no doubt, true that the convict prisoner escaped from police escort during his remand period, pursuant to which, a case was registered against him in Cr.No.138 of 2002 on the file of East Kumbakonam Police Station which ended in his conviction in C.C. No.765 of 2003 vide judgment dated 11.08.2006 and he also underwent two years rigorous imprisonment for the said offence. It is equally true that as per GO 64 and GO 488, a convict prisoner who is convicted of the offence under Section 224 IPC, 13/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 makes himself ineligible for premature release. Now, the point is whether notwithstanding the fact that the convict prisoner has undergone the sentence for his conviction of the offence under Section 224 IPC, he is ineligible for premature release. In the considered opinion of this Court, conviction of the convict prisoner under Section 224 IPC (ineligible offence as per GO 64 and GO 488) cannot be a bar for his premature release in the light of the fact that he had undergone the sentence for the said conviction. The reason for this Court opining so, lies at paragraph nos.6 and 7 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.Veera Bhaarathi, supra, which read as under:
"6. In other words, the argument on behalf of the appellants is that if a person is to be convicted and sentenced under an ineligible section/ineligible offence he would not be entitled to the benefit of early/premature release under the Prison Rules.
7. The operation of the Rules in the manner as suggested on behalf of the appellants would result in a highly incongruous situation which the rule-making authority could not have been understood to have contemplated or envisaged. Higher offences involving sentence of imprisonment for life or even death sentence commuted to life imprisonment, if not coupled with convictions under the ineligible section(s), would entitle a convict to consideration of his case for early release. But, if a lifer is to be convicted for a much lesser offence, say, offences under Sections 224, 498-A IPC, etc. and sentenced to small periods of imprisonment, notwithstanding the fact that he had completed more than 10 years of custody, he would still not be eligible for early release. Such a situation, in our considered view, cannot be allowed to prevail by understanding the operation of the Rules in the manner suggested on behalf of the appellants."
(emphasis supplied) 14/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024
17. In fact, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in P. Veera Bhaarathi, supra, has been consistently followed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, not in one case, but, in as many as four cases, viz., P.Kaliammal, supra, Manikandan, supra, Kokila, supra and Roja Venkatesh, supra. Interestingly, in Shor vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another13 which was followed in Manikandan, supra, the Supreme Court has gone on to hold that the prisoner's conduct in prison, long period of incarceration, remorse after imprisonment, his age, his possibility to reintegrate with the society and lead a peaceful and normal life, would also have to be cumulatively assessed to arrive at a conclusion as to whether he is entitled to premature release or not. Further, it is pertinent to observe, at this juncture, that as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the convict prisoner ought to have been released prematurely based on GO 64 or at least, based on GO 488, since, as on the date of both the GOs, the convict prisoner had completed undergoing the sentence for the ineligible offence.
18. Thus, in view of the categorical and authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in P. Veera Bhaarathi, supra, and the catena of Co-ordinate Bench decisions alluded to above, we hold that 13 (2021) 14 SCC 820 15/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 the argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the conviction of the convict prisoner of the ineligible offence will disentitle him for premature release, does not have legs to stand.
19. As regards point no.(ii) of paragraph 15, supra, i.e., danger would befall the convict prisoner if released prematurely and hence, premature release was rejected, as rightly argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, both GO 64 and GO 488 spell out in crystal clear terms inter alia that a convict prisoner can be released, provided there is safety for his life, if released prematurely. But, in the case on hand, even as per the report of the Probation Officer, Mayiladuthurai, the convict prisoner who is a lifer, did not commit the offence of murder with caste-based or communal motive and it was only a result of his emotional outburst. Secondly, the family members of the victim also do not reside in the same locality where the family of the convict prisoner resides to wreak vengeance against the convict prisoner. Thirdly, the family members of the convict prisoner also are ready to accept him. Last but not the least, according to the Probation Officer, the convict prisoner is capable of eking out his own livelihood after release. It is noteworthy that only based on these findings of the Probation Officer, that the Chairman of the Advisory Board recommended for premature release of the convict prisoner, which 16/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 fact has, unfortunately, been lost sight of by the first respondent while passing the impugned order. Further, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the convict prisoner had availed leave on quite a few occasions, including an occasion, during which he had availed 40 days ordinary leave, that too, sans escort and returned to prison safely without there being any untoward incident during his leave period and this position is not disputed by the State even.
20. Superadded, it will not be out of place to point out, at this juncture, that the conviction of the convict prisoner for the ineligible offence is not assigned as the reason in the impugned order for rejection of premature release for the convict prisoner. No doubt, there is a passing reference to it at paragraph 1 of the impugned order while adverting to the letter from the Director General of Police/Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services. Be that as it may, it is trite that what is not stated in an order under challenge cannot be substituted or supplemented by way of counter affidavit or submissions at the bar as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi14.
14 (1978) 1 SCC 405 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024
21. On a holistic and cumulative appreciation of the above aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the convict prisoner is entitled to premature release. In such perspective of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed.
22. The impugned order having been set aside, the question that follows as a natural corollary is, point no.(iii) of paragraph 15, supra, i.e., whether this Court can straightaway direct the respondents to release the convict prisoner.
23. This point is no longer res integra in view of the following decisions:
i. Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in P. Veera Bhaarathi, supra.
“22. The petitioner, in his concluding argument, submitted that instead of directing the Government to consider his case for premature release, afresh, in the light of the verification reports of the Probation Officer and the District Collector, this Court may set him at liberty by remitting the sentence.
23. In our considered view, the said request cannot be considered, for the simple reason, when statutorily there is a forum constituted for considering the individual case for premature release by taking into account the various facts and circumstances, as enumerated in the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, this Court cannot usurp the power of the said forum and exercise the powers of the Advisory Board. Therefore, this request is rejected.” (emphasis supplied) 18/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 ii. Judgment of the Supreme Court in H. Nilofer Nisha, supra:
"32. We are clearly of the view that the Court itself cannot examine the eligibility of the detenu to be granted release under the Scheme at this stage. There are various factors, enumerated above, which have to be considered by the committees. The report of the Probation Officer is only one of them. After that, the District Committee has to make a recommendation and finally it is the State Level Committee which takes a final call on the matter. We are clearly of the view that the High Court erred in directing the release of the detenu forthwith without first directing the competent authority to take a decision in the matter. Merely because a practice has been followed in the Madras High Court of issuing such type of writs for a long time cannot clothe these orders with legality if the orders are without jurisdiction. Past practice or the fact that the State has not challenged some of the orders is not sufficient to hold that these orders are legal."
(emphasis supplied)
24. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Kaliammal, supra, Manikandan, supra and Kokila, supra, the said reliance deserves only outright rejection in view of the two judgments alluded to in the preceding paragraph.
25. Having dealt with the three points urged by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor alluded to at paragraph 15, supra, in passing, this Court hastens to add that the second reason assigned in the impugned order which is extracted in paragraph 2.5, supra, deserves to be stated only to be rejected for the reason that the State cannot, on the one hand, issue Government Orders, like GO 64 and GO 488, prescribing guidelines for premature release of convict prisoners on the occasion of 19/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 certain birth anniversaries of certain leaders and on the other, state in the impugned order, that potential of the convict prisoner to commit crimes in future would be prevented by keeping him in prison. In short, the State cannot blow both hot and cold by taking mutually destructive stands.
26. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the convict prisoner has served out sentence for well over 22 years and 8 months in the prison as on date, the fact that the Advisory Board has recommended for his premature release based on his attitude in the prison and absence of adverse remarks against him and also the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Shor, supra, this Court directs the respondents to reappraise the case of the convict prisoner for premature release within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
27. This writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. Connected W.M.P. stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
28. Post under the caption “for reporting compliance” on 03.12.2025.
(A.D.J.C., J.) (R.P., J.) 04.11.2025 NC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No cad 20/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 To:
1. The Principal Secretary to Government Department of Home (Prison IV) Fort St. George Chennai 600 009
2. The Superintendent of Prisons Trichy Central Prison Trichy 620 020
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai 21/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm ) W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
and R. POORNIMA, J.
cad Pre-delivery order in W.P. (MD) No.22208 of 2024 04.11.2025 22/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:26:29 pm )