Life & Liberty In Jeopardy: Allahabad High Court Directs For Concurrent Running Of Sentences Awarded To Man In Theft Case

The Allahabad High Court while directing for concurrent running of sentences of a man convicted in six cases arising out of theft of electricity equipment observed that it cannot jeopardize his life & liberty.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition against an order of the Trial Court by which the Petitioner was convicted in six cases and the sentences was to run consecutively.

The division bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Avnish Saxena observed, "......we are of the considered view that the life and liberty of the petitioner will be jeopardised if his grievance is not redressed in this writ petition. Thus, the writ petition is allowed. The sentence of one year and six months imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in all the six session cases, shown in the chart, shall run concurrently. The fine has been deposited by the petitioner, per enclosed receipts..."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner was aggrieved, as the Trial Judge while convicting the Petitioner in six cases on the same date sentenced the accused for imprisonment of one years six months in each case, leading to his incarceration of nine years in jail, due to non exercise of discretion provided under Section 427(1) Criminal Procedure Code.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the discretion provided under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. has not been exercised by the Trial Judge. The Petitioner confessed the crime on plea bargaining, considering that in all the cases the Petitioner would be released after one and half years of imprisonment, as all the cases have been lodged by the Police. He averred that the non exercise of discretion of consecutive or concurrent running of sentence by the Trial Judge while convicting the Petitioner simultaneously in six cases led to travesty of justice and long incarceration in jail. He relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Iqram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset observed that the sentence passed in each case evinces same sentence with the direction of set off the period of detention undergone by the Petitioner in the case, in view of Section 428 Cr.P.C. but the Trial Judge has not exercised the discretion provided under Section 427 Cr.P.C. directing concurrent running of sentences, despite the fact that all the convictions have been recorded and sentences awarded on the same date which infers that the subsequent orders of punishment were within the knowledge of the Trial Judge.

It noted that the Supreme Court has held that the right to personal liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognized by the Constitution, which requires protection in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

"The petitioner by judgment and sentence dated 6th January, 2024 passed in one case has been punished with imprisonment of one and half years of judicial confinement. The trial court has not exercised the discretion provided under Section 427 Cr.P.C., which is required to be exercised at the time of subsequent conviction. Consequently in absence of no direction for running the sentences concurrently, the accused-petitioner would suffer incarceration consecutively in six cases for a term of nine years. This will adversely affect his right to life and personal liberty," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Santosh vs. State of U.P. and Another (2025:AHC:114401-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh, Advocate Vikas Sharma

Respondent- Government Advocate

Click here to read/ download Order