Dhaka, Sep 25 (V7N)- The High Court has ruled that sentences imposed on a person in separate criminal cases cannot run concurrently unless the court expressly orders that they do so.

The court said that when a person is convicted and sentenced in multiple cases, a sentence imposed in a subsequent case must begin after completion of the sentence in the previous case if there is no specific direction for the sentences to run concurrently.

A High Court bench comprising Justice Md. Habibul Gani and Justice Sheikh Tahsin Ali delivered the judgment on August 27, 2025, while disposing of a rule issued in response to a writ petition challenging the continued detention of a convict sentenced in six separate cheque-dishonour cases.

The full text of the judgment was recently published on the Supreme Court website in the case of Md. Nasir Uddin vs. The State.

According to the judgment, Chattogram businessman Md. Nasir Uddin was sentenced to different terms of imprisonment in six separate cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, over cheque dishonour. He was arrested on September 5, 2021, and was subsequently shown arrested in the other cases.

Claiming that he had already completed the required prison terms, Nasir Uddin filed a writ petition with the High Court in 2022, alleging that his continued detention was unlawful. Following a preliminary hearing, the court issued a rule on April 11, 2022, questioning why his continued detention should not be declared illegal. The court also granted him interim bail.

During the hearing, his lawyer Md. Shah Alam argued that the period Nasir Uddin spent in custody during the trials should be deducted from his sentences under Section 35A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). He argued that after such adjustment, the sentences had already been completed.

However, counsel for the respondents, Samir Sattar, argued that Section 397 of the CrPC provides that where a person is sentenced in another case and there is no direction for the sentences to run concurrently, the subsequent sentence takes effect after completion of the earlier sentence.

The respondents' lawyer also argued that detention during trial can be deducted only from the sentence imposed in the particular case in which the accused was held in custody. Time spent in custody in one case, he said, cannot be deducted from the sentence imposed in another case.

After reviewing the records and hearing both sides, the High Court discharged the rule in its judgment dated August 27, 2025.

The court observed that under Section 35A of the CrPC, detention during trial can be deducted only from the sentence relating to the specific case in which the detention occurred. It further held that under Section 397, the sentences in the separate cases must be served consecutively because the trial court had not directed them to run concurrently.

The High Court also observed that criminal proceedings generally cannot be quashed through writ jurisdiction unless the validity of the relevant law itself is challenged. It said the writ jurisdiction cannot be used to interfere with criminal verdicts delivered by trial courts.

END/SMA/AJ