Fathima Rinosa Vs The State, Represented by,

Fathima Rinosa vs The State, Represented by,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided May 29, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1465583

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1465583
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice G. R. Swaminathan,Honourable Mr.Justice V. Lakshminarayanan
Decided On: May 29, 2026
Case Number: WP Crl./1247/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Fathima Rinosa

Respondent

The State, Represented by,

Excerpt

.....order dated 07.05.2026 vide no.1150 tha.ku.3/2026 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to grant ordinary leave of 30 days without escort to the detenu mohammed navas s/o.maheer mohammad, aged about 55 years, bearing trial prisoner pid no.308347 confined at central prison, puzhal ii, chennai.page1 of 4 for petitioner: mr.p.syed abdul mashood for respondents: mr.r.ganesh kumar, counsel for govt. of tamil nadu (criminal side)order(order of the court was made by g.r.swaminathan j.) heard both sides.2. the writ petitioner’s husband is an under trial prisoner facing prosecution under the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act,1985. he has been in custody for more than 5 ½ years. the petitionerstates that she has to undergo eye surgery. hence, the petitioner applied to the authorities seeking grant of 30 days ordinary leave for her husband. the request was rejected vide order dated 07.05.2026. challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.3. the very filing of the writ petition and the prayer aremisconceived. the petitioner’s husband is only an under-trial prisoner. therefore, the question of granting leave does not arise at all. the under- trial prisoner has to move the jurisdictional trial court for interim bail. if any such application is filed, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. page2 of 44. the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (g.r.s.,j.) (v.l.n.,j.) index: yes/no neutral citation: yes/no to1. the deputy inspector general of prison,3. the public prosecutor, high court, madras. page3 of 4g.r.swaminathan, j.andv.lakshminarayanan, j.page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.05.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. R. SWAMINATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN and W.M.P. No.415 of 2026 Fathima Rinosa C/o.Navas ..Petitioner Vs
1. The State, Represented by, The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, ..Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 07.05.2026 vide No.1150 Tha.Ku.3/2026 passed by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to grant ordinary leave of 30 days without escort to the detenu Mohammed Navas S/o.Maheer Mohammad, aged about 55 years, bearing Trial Prisoner PID No.308347 confined at Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai.
Page1 of 4 For Petitioner: Mr.P.Syed Abdul Mashood For Respondents: Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, Counsel for Govt. of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.) Heard both sides.

2. The writ petitioner’s husband is an under trial prisoner facing prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985. He has been in custody for more than 5 ½ years. The petitioner

states that she has to undergo eye surgery. Hence, the petitioner applied to the authorities seeking grant of 30 days ordinary leave for her husband. The request was rejected vide order dated 07.05.2026. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The very filing of the writ petition and the prayer are

misconceived. The petitioner’s husband is only an under-trial prisoner. Therefore, the question of granting leave does not arise at all. The under- trial prisoner has to move the jurisdictional trial Court for interim bail. If any such application is filed, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Page2 of 4

4. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (G.R.S.,J.) (V.L.N.,J.) Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No To

1. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison,

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Page3 of 4

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

AND

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Fathima Rinosa vs The State, Represented by, Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice G. R. Swaminathan,Honourable Mr.Justice...