Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 06.11.2026
Karnataka HC Holds Distinct Criminal Acts Do Not Qualify for Concurrent Sentences
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate G Sridharamurthy. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his mob no- +91 9845906418 and email id sriadv3@gmail.com .
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to make two separate criminal sentences run concurrently, holding that the offences arose from distinct causes of action and did not qualify for relief under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Background of the case
The petition was filed by Ramesh, who sought directions to prison authorities to treat the sentences imposed in two Sessions Cases as concurrent rather than consecutive. The petition was heard by Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru and decided on 4 November 2026.
The first case, registered in 2016, involved allegations under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), relating to murder and attempted murder. Ramesh was taken into judicial custody, and the matter proceeded as Sessions Case No. 1359 of 2016.
A second case followed in 2019 after allegations that a witness in the earlier case had been threatened. This resulted in charges under Sections 195A and 506 IPC and was registered as Sessions Case No. 1171 of 2019.
Convictions and sentences
In August 2022, Ramesh was convicted in the 2019 witness-threat case. He received five years of simple imprisonment for each offence, with those sentences ordered to run concurrently. The court also allowed set-off for time already spent in custody.
In January 2023, he was convicted in the 2016 case and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 IPC, along with five years of rigorous imprisonment for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC. The period already spent in custody was again set off under Section 428 CrPC.According thecourt, remained in hadthan yearsinprison thepetition.The issue:can concurrently? when apersona sentenced later begins after the earlier one ends. However, the court has discretion to direct that the sentences run concurrently.
The High Court examined established judicial principles on this issue. It noted that concurrent sentencing is not automatic and requires a specific judicial direction. The discretion must be exercised carefully, based on the nature of the offences and the facts of each case.
The court referred to the Supreme Courtβs decision in Mohd. Zahid v. State, which states that where cases arise from different transactions, involve separate crime numbers, and are decided through different judgments, concurrent sentences ordinarily should not be granted.
Why the petition was dismissed
Ramesh argued that the witness-threat case was connected to the original murder case and should therefore receive the benefit of concurrent sentencing. The State opposed this argument, maintaining that the alleged witness intimidation was a separate offence committed years after the original case was registered.
The High Court accepted the Stateβs position. It found that the second offence occurred in 2019, approximately three years after registration of the first crime, and that the underlying cause of action was different. Although the later case had some connection to the earlier prosecution, it was not part of the same transaction in the legal sense required for concurrent sentencing.
The court also emphasized that directing concurrent sentences should not make a separate crime ineffective or inconsequential. The power under Section 482 CrPC, which preserves the High Courtβs inherent jurisdiction, can be used only in exceptional circumstances, such as a clear abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. The court found no such circumstance here.
Key takeaway
The ruling reinforces that a factual link between two criminal cases is not, by itself, enough to secure concurrent sentences. For relief under Section 427 CrPC, courts will closely assess whether the convictions arise from the same transaction, whether the offences are genuinely distinct, and whether concurrency would undermine the deterrent effect of sentencing.
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Source: Karnataka High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707
Leave a Reply