Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Seeking Concurrency of Sentences Under Section 427(2) CrPC for Prisoner Convicted in Two Separate Trials. Court Directs State to Treat Previous Seven-Year Sentence as Concurrent with Subsequent Life Imprisonment and Recalculate Sentence for Premature Release.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 13:46:52

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Kailas Shankar Navekar, was convicted in Sessions Case No. 100/2006 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed for offences under Sections 363, 376, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine. Subsequently, he was convicted in Sessions Case No. 04/2007 for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 672/2008. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to treat the sentences awarded in both cases as running concurrently under Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and to recalculate his sentence for premature release. The court examined the provisions of Section 427(2) CrPC, which states that 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 the previous sentence. The court noted that the petitioner was undergoing life imprisonment when the previous sentence was imposed, and therefore, the previous sentence must run concurrently with the life sentence. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the previous sentence had already been served, as the petitioner was still in custody. The court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to treat the sentences as concurrent and recalculate the petitioner's sentence accordingly, and to consider his premature release if he has served the requisite period.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Sentencing - Concurrency of Sentences - Section 427(2) CrPC - The petitioner was convicted in Sessions Case No. 100/2006 for offences under Sections 363, 376, 506 IPC and sentenced to 7 years RI, and later convicted in Sessions Case No. 04/2007 for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The court held that Section 427(2) CrPC mandates that a sentence imposed on a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life shall run concurrently with the previous sentence, unless the court directs otherwise. The court directed the respondents to treat the sentences as concurrent and recalculate the petitioner's sentence accordingly. (Paras 3-10)

Issue of Consideration

Whether a prisoner convicted and sentenced in a previous trial is entitled to have that sentence run concurrently with a life sentence awarded in a subsequent trial under Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to treat the sentences awarded in Sessions Case No. 100/2006 and Sessions Case No. 04/2007 as running concurrently under Section 427(2) CrPC, recalculate the petitioner's sentence accordingly, and if the petitioner has undergone the requisite period, consider his premature release forthwith unless required in any other case.

Law Points

Section 427(2) CrPC
concurrency of sentences
life imprisonment
previous conviction
subsequent conviction
mandatory direction
premature release

Case Details

2026:BHC-AUG:14177-DB

Criminal Writ Petition No. 1657 of 2025

2026-04-02

Sandipkumar C. More, Abasaheb D. Shinde

2026:BHC-AUG:14177-DB

Mr. Kiran D. Jadhav, Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya

Kailas Shankar Navekar

The State of Maharashtra, The Inspector General of Prisons Maharashtra State, Pune, The Superintendent, Central Jail Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar

Nature of Litigation

Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to treat sentences as concurrent.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent authorities to treat sentences in Sessions Case No. 100/2006 and Sessions Case No. 04/2007 as running concurrently under Section 427(2) CrPC, recalculate sentence, and consider premature release.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was convicted in two separate trials and sought concurrency of sentences to be eligible for premature release.

Previous Decisions

Petitioner was convicted in Sessions Case No. 100/2006 on 29.04.2008 and sentenced to 7 years RI; convicted in Sessions Case No. 04/2007 and sentenced to life imprisonment, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 672/2008.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the sentence in Sessions Case No. 100/2006 run concurrently with the life sentence in Sessions Case No. 04/2007 under Section 427(2) CrPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that Section 427(2) CrPC mandates concurrency of sentences when a person already undergoing life imprisonment is sentenced in a subsequent trial. Respondents argued that the previous sentence had already been served and concurrency would not apply.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 427(2) CrPC mandates that when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence, unless the court directs otherwise. The provision applies irrespective of whether the previous sentence has been served, as long as the person is still in custody.

Judgment Excerpts

The issue involved in this Writ Petition is whether the petitioner who has been convicted and directed to undergo a term sentence(s) in previous trial is entitled for a benefit of running the said sentence concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment awarded in subsequent trial. Section 427(2) CrPC mandates that 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 the previous sentence.

Procedural History

Petitioner was convicted in Sessions Case No. 100/2006 on 29.04.2008 and sentenced to 7 years RI. Subsequently convicted in Sessions Case No. 04/2007 and sentenced to life imprisonment, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 672/2008. Petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 1657 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court seeking concurrency of sentences.