Supreme Court Quashes Direction For Separate Trial Of Legislator, Orders Joint Trial With Co‑accused

A bench of Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard appeals by Mamman Khan, a sitting Member of the Haryana Legislative Assembly, challenging orders of the Sessions Court at Nuh and the High Court of Punjab & Haryana that had directed segregation of his trial and required the investigating agency to file a separate charge‑sheet against him in connection with communal violence in Nuh district on July 31, 2023.

The Court set aside the trial court’s orders of August 28 and September 2, 2024, and the High Court’s judgment of December 12, 2024, holding that segregation had been directed solely on account of the appellant’s political status and without any legally recognized justification. The bench held that procedural fairness and the statutory scheme under Sections 218–223 Cr.P.C. governed joinder and separation of trials, and that preferential segregation based merely on office was impermissible. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Therefore, we hold that the segregation of the appellant’s trial, without any legally recognized justification, is unsustainable in law and violative of the appellant’s right to a fair trial under Article 21.” The judgment noted that the trial court had recorded that “the cases of MPs/MLAs are to be decided on priority basis by taking up the case on day to day basis,” but held that Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay did not authorize deviation from mandatory rules governing joint trials. The Court also emphasised the constitutional guarantee that “all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the laws,” and directed the trial Court to conduct a joint trial in accordance with law.

Background

The appellant was arraigned as an accused in two FIRs registered at Nagina Police Station, District Nuh (FIR Nos. 149 and 150 dated 01.08.2023) arising out of large‑scale communal violence on 31.07.2023. Multiple persons were investigated and jointly charged; the prosecution relied upon common evidence including call detail records, video footage and common witnesses and framed charges on November 25, 2024. By orders dated 28.08.2024 and 02.09.2024 the Sessions Court directed the SHO to file a separate challan and segregated the appellant’s trial on the ground that the presence of numerous accused and repeated non‑appearance of some co‑accused impeded progress and that cases involving MPs/MLAs should be prioritised. The appellant did not receive prior notice of the segregation order and challenged the orders before the High Court under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; the High Court dismissed the petitions on 12.12.2024. He then approached this Court.

On appeal the appellant contended that the offences arose from the same transaction and that Section 223(d) Cr.P.C. required joint trial unless exceptional circumstances were shown; he argued segregation would prejudice his defence, risk multiple proceedings founded on identical evidence, and that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing filing of a separate charge‑sheet. The State defended the segregation as necessary to secure expeditious disposal, invoking the Court’s direction in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay to prioritise trials of elected representatives and pointing to logistical difficulties caused by dozens of accused and absconding persons. The Supreme Court examined statutory provisions and precedents including Nasib Singh and Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao, held that the segregation was ordered suo motu without notice and without cogent reasons such as distinct transactions or demonstrable prejudice, and found the order inconsistent with Article 21 and Article 14. The Court quashed the segregation directions, held that the investigating agency alone had discretion to file charge‑sheets, and remitted the matter to the trial Court with a direction to proceed with a joint trial of the appellant and co‑accused, while permitting the trial Court to schedule proceedings to ensure expeditious disposal after hearing all parties.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 4002 & 4003 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1829 of 2025 and 18089 of 2024) Case Title: Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Senior Counsel for appellant (name not specified in record) For the Respondent(s): Counsel for State of Haryana (name not specified in record)