Multiple Sentences Do Not Run Concurrently Without Express Court Order: High Court Judgement

Section 35A Benefit Limited to Custody in the Same Case

The High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has held that sentences of imprisonment imposed in separate cases will ordinarily run consecutively unless the court expressly directs that they be served concurrently. The court also observed that the benefit under Section 35A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is available only for the period of pre-trial custody spent in the same case and cannot be deducted from a sentence in another case.

Background of the Case

The writ petition was filed by Md. Nasir Uddin, who had been convicted in six separate cases instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

He claimed that, considering the periods he had spent in custody in different cases, he was entitled to release and alleged that the jail authorities had failed to properly extend the benefit available under Section 35A of the CrPC. He therefore invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 102 of the Constitution.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that he had already undergone the sentences imposed in the different cases and that the periods of custody should be taken into account for determining his release.

On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent banks argued that under Section 397 of the CrPC, sentences imposed in separate cases would run consecutively unless the court specifically ordered otherwise. Custody undergone in one case, they argued, could not automatically be adjusted against the sentence imposed in another case.

Court's Observations

The High Court observed that Section 35A of the CrPC permits deduction of the period of pre-trial detention only in the case in which the accused was detained. A period of imprisonment undergone in another case cannot be adjusted under the provision.

The court further observed that, under Section 397 of the CrPC, where a person is convicted in more than one case, a subsequent sentence takes effect after the completion of the previous sentence unless the trial court expressly directs that the sentences shall run concurrently.

Referring to the decision in Nazrul Islam vs. Government of Bangladesh, 75 DLR 427, the court reiterated that multiple sentences ordinarily operate consecutively and that an express judicial direction is required for sentences to run concurrently.

The High Court also observed that the writ jurisdiction under Article 102 of the Constitution ordinarily cannot be invoked to interfere with criminal proceedings unless the vires of a law is challenged or a jurisdictional defect is established.

Decision

After considering the matter, the High Court discharged the Rule and directed the petitioner to surrender within two months.

The court, however, allowed the petitioner's lawyer to prepare separate calculations of the periods of pre-trial custody in each case and submit them to the prison authorities so that the benefit under Section 35A could be properly applied.

Legal Takeaway

The judgment clarifies that imprisonment sentences imposed in multiple cases do not automatically run concurrently. In the absence of an express order by the court, separate sentences ordinarily operate consecutively.

It also makes clear that the benefit under Section 35A of the CrPC is case-specific: pre-trial custody in one case cannot ordinarily be set off against the sentence imposed in another case.

Case Details

Case: Md. Nasir Uddin vs. Government of Bangladesh and Others
Writ Petition: No. 2327 of 2022
Court: High Court Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Bench: Justice Md. Habibul Gani and Justice Sheikh Tahsin Ali
Jurisdiction: Special Original Jurisdiction under Article 102 of the Constitution
Dates of Hearing: 25 June, 4 August, 20 August and 21 August 2025
Judgment: 27 August 2025
Judgment Published: 15 September 2026

BD Law Post/ Masum