Sentences in multiple cases cannot run concurrently without court order: HC

Sentences in multiple cases cannot run concurrently without court order: HC

The High Court has ruled that if a person is separately sentenced in multiple criminal cases, those sentences cannot run or be counted concurrently without a clear direction from the court.

In the verdict, the court said that when sentencing in separate cases, unless the relevant judgments contain a clear direction that the sentences will run concurrently, the sentence in the next case will be executed only after the sentence in one case ends.

The High Court bench comprising Justice Md Habibul Gani and Justice Sheikh Tahsin Ali delivered the verdict on August 27, 2025, dismissing a rule issued in a writ petition challenging the legality of keeping a convict in jail in six separate cheque dishonour cases. The full copy of the verdict was recently published on the Supreme Court's website.

The High Court delivered the verdict in the case of Md Nasir Uddin versus the State. The verdict directed the accused to surrender before the concerned lower court within two months.

Lawyer Md Shah Alam appeared for the petitioner, while lawyers Md Samir Sattar and Muhammad Ali Akkas Chowdhury appeared for the defendants. Deputy Attorney General Md Mahaddes-ul-Islam (Tutul) and Mahfuz Bin Yusuf represented the state.

The main verdict was written by Justice Sheikh Tahsin Ali.

According to the published verdict, Chattogram businessman Md Nasir Uddin was sentenced to various terms in six separate cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, relating to cheque dishonour. He was subsequently arrested on September 5, 2021, and later shown arrested in various cases.

Meanwhile, in 2022, businessman Md Nasir Uddin filed a writ petition in the High Court, alleging he was being illegally kept in jail despite completing his sentence. Taking the preliminary hearing of the writ, the High Court on April 11, 2022, issued a rule asking why the defendants' inaction and failure to release Nasir Uddin from jail despite him having served his sentence should not be declared beyond legal authority and illegal. The court also granted him interim bail.

Later, at the rule hearing, the petitioner's lawyer, Md Shah Alam, claimed, "Nasir Uddin was in jail while the cases were under trial, and that time was not deducted from his sentence. If his jail term is adjusted under Section 35A of the Criminal Procedure Code, his sentence has already been completed. Therefore, he should be released from jail."

However, the defendants' lawyer, Samir Sattar, claimed that under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if a convict is sentenced again in another case, and the court does not clearly direct in the judgments that the sentences will run concurrently, then the next sentence will be executed only after one sentence ends. The trial court did not give any direction for the sentences to run concurrently here.

He said, "According to Section 35A of the Criminal Procedure Code and the circular of the Registrar General of the Supreme Court, only the time of detention during trial in the specific case in which the accused was in custody will be deducted from the main sentence. Serving a sentence or detention in one case cannot be used to reduce the sentence in another case."

After hearing both sides and reviewing the documents, the High Court dismissed the rule and delivered the verdict on August 27, 2025.

In the verdict, the court said, "In the present writ petition, the applicant has not raised any question about the legal validity of Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881, nor has he been able to prove any jurisdictional error in the trial or in taking cognisance of the offence. Accordingly, any interference and challenge in the ongoing criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the 1881 Act (through this writ petition) is not legally acceptable and is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner, Md Nasir Uddin, is directed to surrender before the concerned lower court within two months from the date of this verdict and order. If he does not surrender within that time, the lower court will issue a warrant of execution of sentence against him."

Additionally, the petitioner's lawyer will prepare a 'calculation sheet' regarding the calculation of the accused's jail term during the trial of the six cases. After examining the lower court's records, the calculation statement will be submitted to the jail authorities so that, in each case, the period of detention during trial can be correctly deducted from the sentence under Section 35A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prison authorities will correctly calculate the period of detention during trial and deduct it from the total sentence of all the petitioner's cases.

In its observations in the verdict, the High Court said, "According to Section 35A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the time an accused has served in jail during trial can be deducted only from the total sentence in that specific case. According to Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, since the trial courts in the separate sessions cases did not order the sentences to run concurrently, the sentence in each case will be executed one after another under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Moreover, unless the validity of the relevant law is challenged, there is no scope to quash criminal proceedings under writ jurisdiction, and the High Court cannot interfere with these criminal judgments of the trial court by exercising writ jurisdiction."