The Supreme Court has issued notice in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the Delhi High Court’s order dated 10 July 2025, which had dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for concurrent running of multiple sentences.
The petitioner has been convicted in several FIRs under Sections 392/397/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, receiving seven years’ imprisonment in each case. Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra has submitted that without concurrency under Section 427 CrPC, the petitioner will be subjected to a prolonged incarceration in prison for a total period of 21 years, which would be nothing but abuse of process of law.
It is contended that the High Court adopted a technical view by relegating the issue to pending criminal appeals, thereby shirking its constitutional duty under Article 226. Relying on Iqram v. State of U.P. (2023) 3 SCC 184 and Benson v. State of Kerala (2016) 10 SCC 307, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the High Court, as a protector of fundamental rights, was bound to consider concurrency to prevent a serious miscarriage of justice.
The Counsel also emphasises that denial of concurrency violates Article 21 of the Constitution, since convicts retain the right to life and personal liberty even while serving sentence. He has also offered to withdraw pending criminal appeals before the High Court if the Supreme Court directs concurrency.
The Court will now consider whether the petitioner’s sentences in different FIRs should be directed to run concurrently, to prevent what is alleged to be a serious miscarriage of justice.