Allowed

Bheemsen @ Bheema v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2024A482/21708/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised its inherent powers to set aside the lower court's order rejecting concurrent sentences. Applying the law in Mohd. Zahid, the Court held that where multiple convictions arise from the same transactions on the same day, sentences should normally run concurrently.

What did the court decide?

All sentences in five cases awarded against the applicant shall run concurrently.

Bheemsen @ Bheema vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:132267

¶2

Court No. 78

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶4

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21708 of 2024

¶5

Bheemsen @ Bheema ...Applicant

¶6

v/s

¶7

State of U.P. ..Opposite Party

¶8

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶9

Shri Sunil Kumar Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Alok Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

¶10

Present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed to set aside the order dated 10.5.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway) Agra in Misc. Application No. 2 of 2024, whereby the application has been rejected as not maintainable and directed to run the sentences concurrently awarded to the applicant in Case Crime Nos. 90 of 2023, 150 of 2023, 143 of 2023, 202 of 2023 and 165 of 2023 vide judgment and order dated 1.9.2023.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 10.5.2024 has been passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that in the above noted five cases, the applicant has been convicted on the same day and awarded one year imprisonment with Rs. 5,000/- fine and in default of payment of fine, one month additional imprisonment on the basis of confession. It is further submitted that all the sentences has been awarded by the trial court on the same day in all five cases.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Mohd. Zahid Vs. State through NCB, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1183 , observed in para No. 11 as under:

¶13

¶14

"33. Thus from the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the principles of law that emerge are as under:

¶15

(i) if a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced;

¶16

(ii) ordinarily the subsequent sentence would commence at the expiration of the first term of imprisonment unless the court directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence;

¶17

(iii) the general rule is that where there are different transactions, different crime numbers and cases have been decided by the different judgments, concurrent sentence cannot be awarded under Section 427 Cr.P.C.;

¶18

(iv) under Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. the court has the power and discretion to issue a direction that all the subsequent sentences run concurrently with the previous sentence, however discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of the offence or the offences committed and the facts in situation. However, there must be a specific direction or order by the court that the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence."

¶19

Revert back to the case in hand the Sentences have been passed in five cases, which are related to offence punishable under Sections 379, 411, I.P.C. on the basis of confessional statement of the present applicant. It is further submitted that other co-accused Lavkush Kushwaha has been granted benefit of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Zahid Vs. State through NCB, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 118.

¶20

In view of the above facts and circumstances, all the sentences have been awarded by the separate Judgment passed on the same day and as per the law laid down by the Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court., the application is disposed of as per provisions of

¶21

¶22

Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. and all the sentences in five cases awarded against the applicant shall run concurrently.

¶23

Let a certified copy of this order be immediately sent to the court of Jail authorities as well as court concerned.

¶24

Order Date :- 14.8.2024 T. Sinha

¶25

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- TRIPTI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bheemsen @ Bheema v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheemsen @ Bheema v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manoj vs State of U.P.

Satish @ Guru Charan vs State of Up and 2 Others

Kanhaiya Lal vs State of U.P. and Another

Rais vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Kumar Rajput vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another