Multiple sentences cannot run concurrently without court order: HC

The High Court has ruled that when a person is convicted in separate criminal cases, the sentences will run consecutively unless the respective courts expressly direct that they run concurrently.

The HC made this observation while disposing of a rule issued in a writ petition challenging the continued detention of Md Nasir Uddin, a businessman from Chattogram convicted in six separate cases involving dishonoured cheques.

A bench comprising Justice Md Habibul Gani and Justice Sheikh Tahsin Ali delivered the verdict on 27 August 2025. 

In the case, titled “Md Nasir Uddin vs State”, the court held that sentences imposed in separate cases will take effect one after another unless the respective courts specifically order otherwise. 

In other words, concurrent sentencing is not automatic; it must be expressly directed in the judgment.

The court also clarified the application of Section 35A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), holding that time spent in custody during the trial of a particular case can be deducted only from the sentence imposed in that case. 

So, time spent in custody in one case cannot be used to reduce a sentence imposed in another case. The ruling arose from a writ filed by Uddin in 2022, claiming that he had been unlawfully kept in jail even after completing his sentences.

Read More

High Court bars hartals, blockades against court orders

According to the verdict, Uddin was convicted and sentenced to different terms in six separate cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 

He was arrested on 5 September 2021 and subsequently shown as arrested in the other cases.

Following the initial hearing of his writ petition, the HC issued a rule on 11 April 2022 and granted him interim bail.

During the hearing, Uddin’s lawyer Md Shah Alam argued that his client had remained in custody while the cases were pending trial and that the periods of detention had not been properly deducted from his sentences.

Referring to Section 35A of the CrPC, Alam argued that once the periods of pre-trial detention were adjusted against the sentences, Uddin had already completed his jail terms and should therefore be released.

Advocate Md Samir Sattar, appearing for the respondents, opposed the argument. Referring to Section 397 of the CrPC, he argued that when a person already serving a sentence is subsequently convicted in another, the sentences run consecutively unless the court specifically directs that they run concurrently.

He further argued that under Section 35A of the CrPC and a circular issued by the Registrar General of the Supreme Court, time spent in custody during trial could be deducted only from the sentence imposed in the particular case in which the accused had been detained. 

The period served in one case, he argued, could not be used to reduce the sentence in another. The HC found that the writ petition did not challenge the validity of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and that Uddin had failed to establish any jurisdictional defect in the initiation or trial of the cases. 

The court therefore found no basis to interfere with the criminal proceedings through its writ jurisdiction.

The court directed Uddin’s lawyer to prepare a calculation sheet showing the periods he had spent in custody during the trials of the six cases. The calculation is to be prepared after examining the records of the lower courts and submitted to the prison authorities.

The High Court also observed that, unless the validity of the relevant law is challenged, criminal proceedings cannot ordinarily be quashed through writ jurisdiction. 

Similarly, the HC cannot use its writ jurisdiction to interfere with criminal judgments passed by competent trial courts.

The court directed Uddin to surrender before the concerned trial court within two months of the date of the verdict. Failure to surrender within the stipulated period would result in the issuance of an arrest warrant.