The Supreme Court allowed criminal appeals filed by Mamman Khan, a sitting MLA from Haryana, challenging the segregation of his trial from co-accused in two FIRs related to communal violence in Nuh District. The Court held that when offences arise from the same transaction, joint trial is mandatory under Section 223(d) Cr.P.C. The trial Court had directed segregation solely because the appellant was a sitting MLA, which the Supreme Court found legally untenable. The Court emphasized that political status cannot justify deviation from statutory trial procedures and that separate trials in such circumstances would cause prejudice and violate fair trial principles. The impugned orders of the trial Court and High Court were set aside, and joint trial was directed.
Criminal Law-- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)- Section 528-- Code of criminal Procedure, 1973-- Sections 218 and 223-- Indian Penal Code, 1860-- Sections 148, 149, 153A, 379A, 395, 397, 427, 436, 506, 201, 120B and 107-- Constitution of India, 1950-- Articles 14 and 21 -- Communal violence in large scale -- Two complaints-- Appellant/accused is sitting MLA- Complaints lodged against appellant along with other accused persons-- Ld. trial court ordered to segregate the trial qua appellant as he is sitting MLA-- Challenged before High court-- High court dismissed both petitions of appellant-- Aggrieved-- Challenged before supreme court-- Case of Ashwini Upadhyay (Supra) referred-- Prayer of appellantfor joint trial with other accused-- Unified nature of allegations- Segregation of trial ordered suo motu without affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing-- Offences committed in the course of same transaction may be charged and tried to gether-- Provisions of Sections 218 to 223 of Code referred-- No allegation that the acts attributed to the appellant arise from a distinct transaction-- Misapplication of ratio laid down in the case of Ashwini kumar Upadhyay (Supra)-- Case of Nasib Singh (Supra) referred-- No finding recorded that a joint trial would delay proceedings or cause prejudice to the appellant-- Right of fair trial-- Suo motu order of segregation of trial violates the basic principles of procedural fairness inherent in Article 21 of constitution of India-- Appellant's status as sitting MLA cannot be itself justify a separate trial-- No justification in segregation trial solely on the basis that the appellant is holding political office-- Similar role of the appellant with other co-accused-- Impugned order of segregations of trial set aside-- Direction to run trial jointly-- Appeals allowed
Para-- 10, 12.1, 13.1, 14, 15, 16, 16.1, 17, 21
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court -- The Court held that segregation of appellant's trial from co-accused was legally impermissible -- Directed joint trial of appellant along with co-accused in accordance with law
Citation: 2025 LawText (SC) (09) 18
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4002 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1829 of 2025) with Criminal Appeal No. 4003 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18089 of 2024)
Date of Decision: 2025-09-12
Case Title: The Issue of Consideration was whether the segregation of the appellant's trial from that of co-accused was legally permissible when the alleged offences arose from the same transaction
Before Judge: J. B. PARDIWALA J. , R. MAHADEVAN J.
Equivalent Citations: 2025 INSC 1113
Advocate(s): Not specified in provided text
Appellant: Mamman Khan
Respondent: State of Haryana
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeals challenging segregation of trial from co-accused in communal violence cases
Remedy Sought: Appellant sought setting aside of trial Court and High Court orders segregating his trial and direction for joint trial with co-accused
Filing Reason: Appellant aggrieved by segregation of his trial from co-accused solely on ground of being sitting MLA
Previous Decisions: Trial Court directed segregation and separate charge-sheet against appellant -- High Court dismissed petitions challenging segregation -- Supreme Court granted leave in both SLPs
Issues: Whether segregation of appellant's trial from co-accused was legally permissible when alleged offences arose from same transaction Whether political status of accused as sitting MLA justifies deviation from statutory trial procedure under Cr.P.C Whether trial Court exceeded jurisdiction by directing police to file separate charge-sheet
Submissions/Arguments: Appellant's counsel argued segregation was arbitrary and legally untenable as Section 223(d) Cr.P.C mandates joint trial for same transaction offences -- Reliance on Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay case directions was misplaced as they only call for prioritization not separate trials -- Cited Nasib Singh, Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao, and R. Dinesh Kumar cases establishing mandatory joint trial for same transaction offences -- Argued trial Court exceeded jurisdiction by directing separate charge-sheet -- Contended segregation would cause prejudice and violate Article 20(2) and Article 21 Respondent's counsel argued segregation was necessary for judicial efficiency due to large number of accused and logistical challenges -- Contended repeated non-appearance of co-accused caused delays -- Submitted separate trial would ensure expeditious disposal
Ratio Decidendi: When offences form part of same transaction, joint trial is mandatory under Section 223(d) Cr.P.C -- Political status of accused cannot justify deviation from statutory trial procedure -- Separate trials permissible only in exceptional circumstances expressly contemplated by law -- Multiplicity of trials arising from same incident causes injustice prejudice delay -- Trial Court cannot direct investigating agency to file separate charge-sheet
Judgment Excerpts: Section 223(d) Cr.P.C provides that persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction shall be tried jointly Joint trials are the rule, and separate trials are permissible only in exceptional circumstances expressly contemplated by law The alleged offences, including rioting and conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, arise from the same issue; hence, it is impermissible to try the alleged conspirator separately from the principal perpetrators Those directions merely call for prioritization of trials involving MPs/MLAs for expeditious disposal and do not permit deviation from the statutory scheme, nor authorize separate charge-sheets or trials solely on the basis of accused's political status
Procedural History: FIRs registered on 01.08.2023 for communal violence incident on 31.07.2023 -- Joint proceedings commenced before trial Court -- Trial Court passed orders on 28.08.2024 and 02.09.2024 directing segregation and separate charge-sheet -- Appellant filed petitions before High Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -- High Court dismissed petitions on 12.12.2024 -- Appellant filed SLPs before Supreme Court -- Supreme Court granted leave and heard appeals
