Sentences for separate convictions generally run consecutively unless the court explicitly orders them to run concurrently, as per Section 427 of the CrPC.

JUDGMENT :

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioners in the present writ application are seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) For setting aside the Letter No. 3752 dated 23.8.2022 issued under the signature of Jail Superintendent of Sahid Jubba Sahni, Central Jail Bhagalpur addressed to the Jail Superintendent, Divisional Jail Banka, holding therein that petitioners who have been convicted for 10 years in Session Trial No.141/2015 and 4 years in Session Trial No. 190/2015 has to serve the sentence separately and not concurrently. And further direct the authorities’ respondents to treat both the sentence of petitioners to run concurrently.

(ii) For holding that having being remanded from S.T No. 141/2015 to S.T No. 190/2015 the petitioners are entitled to have the sentences to be treated as concurrently and not consecutively.

(iii) For direction to respondents authorities to release the petitioners from jail as they have served the sentences as awarded in both trial (S.T Case No. 141/15 and S.T. Case No. 190/15) on 04.02.2022 concurrently.

(iv) And for any other relief, relief’s for which the petitioners may be found entitled.”

3. From perusal of the records it appears that Banka P.S. Case No. 44 of 2015 dated 23.01.2015 was registered for the offences under Sections 395, 397 and 412/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. Both the petitioners were chargesheeted in the said case and they faced trial in Session Trial No. 141 of 2015. In Sessions Trial No. 141 of 2015, the petitioners were found guilty for the offences under Sections 395, 397 and 412 read with Section 34 IPC. Accordingly, the petitioners were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for committing the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC, in default of payment of fine, they shall be liable to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years and six months in addition to the substantial punishment of the imprisonment of ten years. They were further sentenced for a period of seven years for committing offence punishable under Section 397 IPC and for the offence under Section 412 IPC, they have been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/-and in default of payment of fine, they shall further suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years. These sentences are to run concurrently.

4. It further appears that the petitioners were also made accused in Banka P.S. Case No. 53 of 2015 in which they faced trial in Sessions Trial No. 190 of 2015. In the said trial vide judgment dated 12.06.2019, the learned trial court convicted the petitioners for the offences under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 read with Section 35 of the Arms Act. They have been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-each for the offence under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, both the petitioners shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. The petitioners were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine Rs. 5,000/-each for the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, both the petitioners shall undergo simple imprisonment of one month each. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

5. It is submitted before this Court that the petitioners were arrested in connection with Banka P.S. Case No. 53 of 2015 on 28.01.2015 and they were remanded in Banka P.S. Case No. 44 of 2015 on 29.01.2015. The petitioners have deposited the fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- each.

6. The petitioners claim that they have served the sentence and completed the punishment on 04.02.2022 but they have not been released. The wife of the petitioner no.2 filed an application before the Superintendent of Jail, Banka and requested him to rel