LexMAMMAN KHAN versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 131 : 2025 INSC 1113 Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 4002 of 2025) 12 September 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the orders of the trial court, as affirmed by the High Court, directing segregation of the appellant’s trial from that of the co-accused and requiring the filing of a separate charge sheet solely on the ground that the appellant is a sitting MLA, legally sustainable. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.219 to 223 – Joint trials – Segregation of trial – Permissibility – Appellant-MLA arrayed as one of the accused person along with others , in connection with large-scale communal violence in the Nuh District – Joint proceedings commenced – However, the trial court directed the police to file a separate charge-sheet against the appellant and consequently, segregated his trial from that of the co-accused – Pursuant thereto, the police filed separate charge sheets against the appellant, and charges were framed – Appellant sought quashing of the order of segregation of his trial – High Court dismissed the petitions, and upheld the segregation – Sustainability: Held: Order of the trial court directing segregation of the appellant’s trial from that of the co-accused, cannot be sustained – No allegation that the acts attributed to the appellant arise from a distinct transaction, or that a joint trial would prejudice the prosecution – On the contrary, the prosecution’s own case rests on an overarching conspiracy, and interlinked evidence – Segregation was ordered not on any legally recognized ground such as distinct facts, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice but solely on account of the appellant’s political office which cannot be justified – Preferential segregation militates against the equality principle enshrined in Art.14 – Only ground recorded was the delay occasioned by the * Author 132 [2025] 10 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports non-appearance of certain co-accused – Appellant was regularly before the court – No finding recorded that a joint trial would delay proceedings or cause prejudice to the appellant – Segregation order passed suo motu by the trial court, without notice or application, violates the basic principles of procedural fairness inherent in Art.21 – Evidence against the appellant is identical to that against the co-accused – Separate trials would necessarily involve recalling the same witnesses, resulting in duplication, delay, and the risk of inconsistent findings – High Court confined itself to the discretionary language of s.223 without evaluating whether the factual circumstances justified such segregation – Thus, the segregation of the appellant’s trial, without any legally recognized justification, unsustainable in law and violative of the appellant’s right to a fair trial u/Art.21 – No person, whether a sitting MLA or an ordinary citizen can be subjected to procedural disadvantage or preferential treatment without express legal justification – While expeditious disposal of cases involving legislators is undoubtedly desirable, such administrative prioritization cannot override the procedural safeguards guaranteed under the Cr.P.C. or the constitutional mandate of equality – Segregating the appellant’s trial solely on account of his political office, in the absence of any legal or factual necessity, amounts to arbitrary classification and undermines the integrity of the criminal justice process – Impugned orders passed by the trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court set aside – Direction to file a separate charge sheet against the appellant and the segregation of his trial quashed – Matter remitted to the trial court – Constitution of India – Art.14, 21. [Paras 14, 15, 16.1-24] Case Law Cited Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India [2023] 14 SCR 266 : (2024) 1 SCC 185; Nasib Singh v. State, 2021 OnLine SC 94 – held inapplicable. R. Dinesh Kumar v. State [2015] 5 SCR 605 : (2015) 7 SCC 497; State of A.P. v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao [1964] 3 SCR 297 : AIR 1963 SC 1850 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 671; Chandra Bhal v. State of U.P. (1971) 3 SCC 983 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 290 – referred to. List of Acts Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Constitution of India. [2025] 10 S.C.R. 133 Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana List of Keywords Segregation; Filing of separate charge shee
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.