LUCKNOW: In a significant ruling on sentencing law, the Allahabad High Court has allowed a writ petition filed by a convict, Santosh, and directed that his prison terms in six different cases run concurrently. The petitioner was facing a cumulative sentence of nine years after being convicted and sentenced to one year and six months in each of the six cases on the same day through plea bargaining.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Avnish Saxena, observed that the trial court’s failure to exercise its judicial discretion on whether the sentences should run concurrently or consecutively would lead to a “serious miscarriage of justice.”
Background of the Case

The petitioner, Santosh, was prosecuted in six separate cases registered at Police Station Jawan, District Aligarh, for the theft of electricity equipment, an offence punishable under Section 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003. On January 6, 2024, the trial court convicted him in all six cases based on his admission of guilt under the plea bargaining provisions of the Cr.P.C.
In each case, he was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000. However, the trial judge, while passing the six separate judgments on the same date, did not issue any direction as to whether the sentences would run concurrently with each other. By default, under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C., this meant the sentences would run consecutively, compelling the petitioner to undergo a total of nine years’ imprisonment.
Aggrieved by this outcome, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a direction to the Superintendent of District Jail, Aligarh, to run the sentences concurrently.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ankit Kumar Singh, argued that the trial judge failed to exercise the discretion vested in the court under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. He submitted that the petitioner had confessed to the crimes under plea bargaining with the understanding that he would be released after one and a half years. The non-exercise of discretion, he contended, “led to travesty of justice and long incarceration in jail.” He placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Iqram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 3 SCC 184.
Opposing the plea, the learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) argued that Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. mandates that sentences run consecutively unless the court specifically directs otherwise. The A.G.A. described the petitioner as a “habitual offender” who was apprehended by the police and had subsequently pleaded guilty.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court, in the judgment authored by Justice Avnish Saxena, noted that all six convictions were recorded by the same judge on the same day based on plea bargaining. While the trial judge had granted a set-off for the pre-trial detention period under Section 428 Cr.P.C., he “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.”
The bench found this omission critical, stating, “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 heavily leaned on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Iqram v. State of U.P., where, in a similar case of multiple convictions for electricity theft, the apex court had intervened to prevent an 18-year consecutive sentence, calling it a “serious miscarriage of justice.” Quoting the Iqram case, the High Court reiterated the principles that while the general rule is consecutive sentencing for different transactions, the court has the discretion to order concurrent sentences, and this discretion must be exercised judiciously.
The bench further opined that it is “obligatory on the Trial Court to exercise the discretion provided under Section 427 Cr.P.C.” It cited a larger bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Satnam Singh Puransing Gill Vs. State of Maharastram, which held that the legislative intent of Section 427(1) requires the court to act on its own, as sentencing is its primary duty.
Concluding that the petitioner’s life and liberty would be jeopardized without its intervention, the Court held, “Hence, 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.”
The Court allowed the writ petition and issued a directive: “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 Registry was directed to immediately inform the District Jail, Aligarh, for the petitioner’s release and to send a copy of the judgment to the concerned judicial officers for compliance.
Case: Santosh v. State of U.P. and Another (CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 11627 of 2025)