1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11890 of 2011 M.Tamilselvi ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli. 2. The Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents PRAYER:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the respondent police to direct the first respondent to release the petitioner's husband Machakalai (Number 99636) on parole for two weeks to attend the marriage on 08.09.2011 of his daughter Nithya and connected functions. For Petitioner : Mr.Siva Ayyappan For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER This petition is filed seeking for a direction, to direct the first respondent to release the petitioner's husband Machakalai (Number 99636) on parole for two weeks to attend the marriage, which was held on 08.09.2011 of his daughter Nithya and connected functions. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a life convict, against which he has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.1069 of 2002, this Court has modified the sentence of conviction from under Section 302 I.P.C to one under Section 304(i) I.P.C and sentencing him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default, to undergo 3 moths rigorous imprisonment. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that he has not preferred any appeal. Now his daughter's marriage has been fixed on 08.09.2011. Since the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioner's husband was in prison, she is unable to move the application in time. He has come forward with this application for a direction, to direct the first respondent to release the petitioner's husband Machakalai on parole for two weeks and prayed for an order. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the marriage has been performed and there is no necessity to grant parole to the petitioner. But, he fairly conceded, after marriage function has been taken place, instead of granting two weeks, he may be granted lesser period. 5. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, the petitioner was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C and imposed life sentence and On appeal, it was modified to one under Section 304(i) I.P.C and imposing sentence of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment, against which he has not preferred any appeal. Now his daughter's marriage has been fixed and marriage has been performed today. But for the other connected function, he wanted to be there. 6. Considering the same, instead of granting two weeks time as parole, the first respondent is directed to release him on parole for three (3) days ie. 09.09.2011, 10.09.2011 and 11.09.2011 and the petitioner is directed to be present before the first respondent on 12.09.2011. The second respondent is directed to provide adequate security for the petitioner. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli. 2. The Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ps akm/08.09.11 /2p-4c/ Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11890 of 2011 08.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/