1 CRIWP764-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.764/2026 (SHAIKH BABU SHAIKH CHHOTUMIYA (IN JAIL) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Shri A.Y. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nandita Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE , JJ. D ATE : SEPTEMBER 29 , 2026 . P. C. Heard Shri A.Y. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, who is a convict, has approached this Court praying for following reliefs:- “1. Directs that all three sentences of 2 years 6 months R.I. each awarded by three different courts i.e. C.J.M. Parbhani RCC no.894/2023 dated 23/12/2024, J.M.F.C. (court no.2) Solapur RCC No.1834/2023 dated 04/04/2025, J.M.F.C. Chikhli RCC no.46/2024 dated 16/10/2025, shall run concurrently from the date of first arrest i.e 12/10/2023 under section 427 Cr.P.C/467 of B.N.S.S, in the interest of justice; 2. Further direct the respondent no.2 to release the petitioner forthwith, if he is not required in any other case, 3. Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deemed fit may kindly be accorded in facts and circumstance o the present case.” 3. It is evident from the Prayer Clause 1 that the petitioner seeks a direction that three sentences passed by three different Courts, i.e. C.J.M. Parbhani, J.M.F.C. (Court no.2), Solapur and J.M.F.C. Chikhali in three different trials for three different offences should be directed to run concurrently, i.e. from the date of first arrest, i.e. 12.10.2020. 2026:BHC-NAG:13239-DB 2 CRIWP764-26.odt 4. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the provisions of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’), which reads thus:- “427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence.- (1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence: Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. (2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.” 5. The proviso of the aforesaid provision clearly reveals that the general rule is that the sentences should run consecutively, however the Courts have power to order in exceptional circumstances that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous sentence. 6. Upon the specific query by this Court, Shri A.Y. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out the circumstances in which this Court should direct that three different sentences imposed upon the petitioner by three different Courts in three different offences should be directed to be run concurrent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Benson Verus State of Kerala [(2016) 10 SCC 307] in order to substantiate his contention. 3 CRIWP764-26.odt 7. However, a perusal of the aforesaid judgment reveals that the circumstances and the facts of the case as referred to in the aforesaid judgment were different and the offences were clubbed together therein. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment reads thus:- “6. In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 427, 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. Going by this normal principle, the sentence chart indicated in the communication dated 27-5-2016 is quite correct. However this normal rule is subject to a qualification and it is within the powers of the Court to direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also enunciated the principle of general rule of running the sentences consecutively can be directed by the Court to be run concurrently subject to a qualification as mentioned in Section 427 of the Code. 9. In view of above, we find no reason to entertain the present writ petition and accordingly, dismiss the same. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the aforesaid judgments passed by the trial Courts as referred to in Prayer Clause 1 of the writ petition in an appeal before the competent appellate Court and while arguing the appeals to request the appellate Court to observe accordingly. The criminal writ petition is disposed of. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) APTE Signed by: Apte Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 06/10/2026 10:52:51