# Suraj v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 86
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-11
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 10801 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suraj-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53824
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

cases separately but did not order that the
sentence shall run concurrently. Therefore, the
petitioner is compelled to undergo 5 years
incarceration without being given an opportunity
of proper trial merely recording conviction, on
the basis of confession.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
227 - The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 427 - Transactions related
to the offences is not the same -
Subsequent
sentence
should
run
consecutively
-
In
absence
of
any
direction as per general rule enunciated in
Section 427(1), the subsequent sentence
will not run concurrently but consecutively
- Petition dismissed.

Held- Petitioner has been convicted separately
in five different incidents having different case
crime
numbers
lodged
by
various
first
informants and all the five cases have been
decided by the separate judgments though, on
a single date, there is no illegality in the order
impugned. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Iqram v. State of U.P. and others, 2023(3) SCC,
Page 184 decided on 16.12.2022;Mohd. Zahid v.
State through NCB, (2022) 12 Supreme Court
Cases 426

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950- The Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Separate incidents took place on different dates;
Petitioner
tried
separately
different
trials;
Subsequent sentence concurrently with the
previous sentence; Convicted separately in five
different incidents; Subsequent sentence will not
run concurrently but consecutively

Case Arising From
Judgments/orders dated 08.09.2023 passed by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (North
Railway) Ghaziabad, in Criminal Case Nos.
2089/2022 under Sections 380, 411 arising out
of FIR no. 114/2022, 2308/2022 under Sections
379, 411 arising out of FIR no. 176/2022,
2140/2022 under Section 380 arising out of FIR
no. 212/2022, 2314/2022 under sections 382,
411 arising out of FIR no. 255/2022 and
2143/2022 under section 414 arising out of FIR
no. 267/2022 (State versus Vicky & others),
Police Station - G.R.P., Ghaziabad

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner :- Harsh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Nitin Kumar
Srivastava
8 All. Suraj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
87

## Text

86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C. provides that the offence u/s 323
can be compounded by the person who has
been hurt, and it does not require the court's
permission and section 506 IPC can be
compounded by the person who is
intimidated,
therefore,
there
is
no
requirement of the signature of the
respondent-accused.

7. There is no illegality in the order
impugned, therefore, no interference is
required. Accordingly, the petition stands
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 86
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 10801 of 2024

Suraj ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Harsh Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Nitin Kumar Srivastava

Issue for Consideration
The learned Magistrate has recorded the
conviction and awarded sentence in all the five
cases separately but did not order that the
sentence shall run concurrently. Therefore, the
petitioner is compelled to undergo 5 years
incarceration without being given an opportunity
of proper trial merely recording conviction, on
the basis of confession.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
227 - The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 427 - Transactions related
to the offences is not the same -
Subsequent
sentence
should
run
consecutively
-
In
absence
of
any
direction as per general rule enunciated in
Section 427(1), the subsequent sentence
will not run concurrently but consecutively
- Petition dismissed.

Held- Petitioner has been convicted separately
in five different incidents having different case
crime
numbers
lodged
by
various
first
informants and all the five cases have been
decided by the separate judgments though, on
a single date, there is no illegality in the order
impugned. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Iqram v. State of U.P. and others, 2023(3) SCC,
Page 184 decided on 16.12.2022;Mohd. Zahid v.
State through NCB, (2022) 12 Supreme Court
Cases 426

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950- The Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Separate incidents took place on different dates;
Petitioner
tried
separately
different
trials;
Subsequent sentence concurrently with the
previous sentence; Convicted separately in five
different incidents; Subsequent sentence will not
run concurrently but consecutively

Case Arising From
Judgments/orders dated 08.09.2023 passed by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (North
Railway) Ghaziabad, in Criminal Case Nos.
2089/2022 under Sections 380, 411 arising out
of FIR no. 114/2022, 2308/2022 under Sections
379, 411 arising out of FIR no. 176/2022,
2140/2022 under Section 380 arising out of FIR
no. 212/2022, 2314/2022 under sections 382,
411 arising out of FIR no. 255/2022 and
2143/2022 under section 414 arising out of FIR
no. 267/2022 (State versus Vicky & others),
Police Station - G.R.P., Ghaziabad

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner :- Harsh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Nitin Kumar
Srivastava
8 All. Suraj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
87
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha
Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Harsh Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Nitin Kumar Srivasatava, learned counsel
for the respondents as well as Mr. Ratan
Singh, learned Additional Government
Advocate-I for the State and perused the
record.

2. The present Writ Petition under
Article 227 of Constitution of India has
been filed with the following prayer:-

Issue a writ, order or direction
that
the
sentences
awarded
to
the
accused/petitioner vide judgments/orders
dated 08.09.2023 passed by Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate (North Railway)
Ghaziabad,
in
Criminal
Case
Nos.
2089/2022 under Sections 380, 411 arising
out of FIR no. 114/2022, 2308/2022 under
Sections 379, 411 arising out of FIR no.
176/2022, 2140/2022 under Section 380
arising out of FIR no. 212/2022, 2314/2022
under sections 382, 411 arising out of FIR
no. 255/2022 and 2143/2022 under section
414 arising out of FIR no. 267/2022 (State
versus Vicky & others), Police Station
G.R.P., Ghaziabad shall run concurrently
and further may kindly be pleased issue
orders or directions that the petition be
released
forthwith,
on
undergone
sentences, in all the 5 criminal cases
mentioned herein above.

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner has
been convicted by the trial court in five
different cases for the offence of theft and
snatching. The details of the sentence
awarded in five cases are as follows:-

Sr.
No
.
FIR
First
informa
nt
Date
of
convictio
n
Sentence

1.
FIR No:
0114/2022
Dated
:
22.05.202
2
U/s : 380
IPC,
PS: GRP,
Ghaziabad
, District:
GRP
Anubhag,
Moradaba
d.
Rakshit
Tiwari
08.09.202
3
U/s:
380
IPC: 01 year
SI with fine
of
Rs.
1000/-
U/s:
411
IPC: 01 year
SI
with fine of
Rs. 1000/-
(both
the
sentence
shall
run
concurrentl
y)
2.
FIR No:
0176/2022
,
Dated:
05.07.202
2,
U/s: 379,
411 IPC,
PS: GRP
Ghaziabad
, District:
GRP
Anubhag,
Moradaba
d
Anubhav
08.09.202
3
U/s:
379
IPC: 01 year
SI with fine
of
Rs.
1000/-
U/s:
411
IPC: 01 year
SI
with fine of
Rs. 1000/-
(both
the
sentence
shall
run
concurrentl
y)
3.

FIR No:
212/2022,
Dated:
27.07.202
2
U/s:
380
IPC
PS: GRP
Ghaziabad
,
District
Ghaziabad
Mohit
Pal
08.09.202
3
U/s:
380
IPC: 01 year
SI with fine
of
Rs.
1000/-
4.
FIR No:
0255/2022
,
Dated
:
20.08.202
2,
U/s:
379
IPC,
PS: GRP
Ghaziabad
, District:
Ghaziabad
Ravi
Verma
08.09.202
3
U/s:
382
IPC: 01 year
SI with fine
of
Rs.
1000/-
U/s:
411
IPC: 01 year
SI
with fine of
Rs. 1000/-
(both
the
sentence
shall
run
concurrentl
y)
5.
FIR No:
0267/2022
,
Dated:
17.09.202
SI
Pramod
Kumar
08.09.202
3
U/s:
414
IPC: 01 year
SI with fine
of
Rs.
1000/-
88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2
U/s:
414
IPC
PS: GRP
Ghaziabad
,
District
Ghaziabad

4. The main submission of learned
counsel for the petitioners is that the
petitioner is languishing in jail since
17.09.2022. The petitioner is currently
undergoing imprisonment in all the aforementioned 05 cases. The petitioner, being a
poor fellow, is not in a position to pay the
fine.
For
the
non-payment of
fine,
petitioner would additionally undergo 16
days of imprisonment, which would lead to
travesty of justice. It has also been
submitted that the learned Magistrate has
recorded the conviction and awarded
sentence in all the five cases separately but
did not order that the sentence shall run
concurrently. Therefore, the petitioner is
compelled to undergo 5 years incarceration
without being given an opportunity of
proper trial merely recording conviction, on
the basis of confession.

5. It has been emphasized that the trial
court failed to exercise its discretion while
recording the sentence. The petitioner was
neither defended by any advocate nor was
offered any legal aid by the trial court. It
has been pleaded that the petitioner is only
23 years of age and his family members
were dependent on him. The petitioner was
not named in the FIRs which were lodged
against unknown persons and there was
lack of evidence to hold the petitioner
guilty.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon a judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqram v. State
of U.P. and others, 2023(3) SCC, Page
184 decided on 16.12.2022, wherein it has
been held that once petitioner espoused
remedy of moving a writ petition under
Article 226 of Constitution of India, High
Court ought to have noticed serious
miscarriage of justice, which would occur
consequent upon trial court not having
exercised specifically its discretion within
ambit of Section of 427(1) Cr.P.C.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the
State has vehemently, refuted the aforesaid
contention on the ground that the petitioner
has been convicted separately in five
different FIRs, therefore, he cannot avail
the benefit of serving the sentence
concurrently.

8. Upon hearing learned counsel for
the parties and from perusal of the record, it
transpires that the petitioner has been
implicated in five different FIRs for
separate incidents which took place on
different dates and the FIRs have been
registered by different first informants.
Though, the trial court recorded the
conviction of the petitioner on a single date
but was tried separately in five different
trials.

9. To appreciate the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the parties, it
will be appropriate to refer the provisions
of Section 427 Cr.P.C., which reads as
under :

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
8 All. Suraj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
89
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.

10. Section 427 Cr.P.C. provides that
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. In other words, subsection (1) of Section 427 confers

a discretion on the Court to direct
that the subsequent sentence following a
conviction shall run concurrently with the
previous sentence.

11. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has clarified the law on Section 427(1)
Cr.P.C. and has also laid down the
principles of law in respect to concurrent
and consecutive running of sentences in
Mohd. Zahid v. State through NCB,
(2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 426.

12. It has been held that if the
transactions related to the offences is not
the same or the facts constituting the two
offences are quite different in that case the
subsequent
sentence
should
run
consecutively- Further, in absence of any
direction as to running of subsequent
sentence, as per general rule enunciated in
Section 427(1), the subsequent sentence
will not run concurrently but consecutively.

13. It has further been observed that
even while exercising discretion under
427(1) Cr.P.C. to run subsequent sentence
concurrently with the previous sentence,
the discretion is to be exercised judiciously
and depending upon the offence/offences
committed. Therefore, considering that
offences under the NDPS Act are very
serious in nature and against the society at
large, held, no discretion shall be exercised
in favour of such accused who is indulging
in multiple offences under the NDPS Act.

14. Further, the principles of law laid
down are as under:-

"(i)
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;

(ii) ordinarily the subsequent
sentence would commence at the expiration
of the first term of imprisonment unless the
court directs the subsequent sentence to
run
concurrently
with
the
previous
sentence;

(iii) the general rule is that where
there are different transactions, different
crime numbers and cases have been
decided
by
the
different
judgments,
concurrent sentence cannot be awarded
under Section 427 of Cr.PC;

(iv) under Section 427 (1)of
Cr.PC the court has the power and
90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
discretion to issue a direction that all the
subsequent sentences run concurrently with
the previous sentence, however discretion
has to be exercised judiciously depending
upon the nature of the offence or the
offences committed and the facts in
situation. However, there must be a specific
direction or order by the court that the
subsequent sentence to run concurrently
with the previous sentence.

15. From perusal of records, it
transpires that the petitioner has been
convicted separately in five different
incidents having different case crime
numbers lodged by various first informants
and all the five cases have been decided by
the separate judgments though, on a single
date. Therefore, in light of the principles as
laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Mohd. Zahid (supra), there is no illegality
in the order impugned.

16. In view of the above and for the
reasons discussed, there is no merit in the
matter.

17. Accordingly, the instant petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 90
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 994 of 2025

Prakash Nut & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Nijam Ahamad

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for consideration
Challenge raised to sureties fixed by the learned
trial court while granting bail.

Headnotes
Sureties in bail-The right of liberty after grant
of bail -should not be frustrated by arbitrary
demands of sureties- onerous surety conditions
which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status
of the applicants-are oblivious to various
relevant considerations in the facts of a case -
curtail the personal liberty of an accused after
he is enlarged on bail- learned trial court has
acted contrary to the law - applicants should not
be asked to furnish local sureties which they
cannot produce- the applicants should be
permitted
to
produce
sureties
from
the
respective places where they ordinarily reside -
or from where they can otherwise furnish the -
impugned
order
set
aside.
Application
allowed.
Held:
A large number of the persons who belong to
marginalized sections of the society or are
financially destitute are often unable to arrange
or provide sureties fixed arbitrarily by the
learned trial courts. To deal with this situation
the Constitutional Courts have held that the
order granting bail cannot be defeated by
arbitrary surety demands and have cautioned
against determining sureties in a mechanical
manner. Obligation is cast by law upon the
learned trial court to apply its mind to the
socioeconomic status of the accused and other
relevant factors in a case while determining the
sureties to be furnished by the said accused.
Application allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.
Home Deptt. (Application U/S no. 82 No.2613
of 2023

List of Acts
Nil

List of Keywords