Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana 2025 INSC 1113 - Ss.218-223 CrPC - Joint Trial -
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 218-223- (i) Separate trial is the rule under Section 218 Cr.P.C; a joint trial may be permissible where the offences form part of the same transaction or the conditions in Sections 219 – 223 Cr.P.C. are satisfied, but even then it is a matter of judicial discretion; (ii) The decision to hold a joint or separate trial must ordinarily be taken at the outset of the proceedings and for cogent reasons; (iii) The two paramount considerations in such decision making are whether a joint trial would cause prejudice to the accused, and whether it would occasion delay or wastage of judicial time; (iv) Evidence recorded in one trial cannot be imported into another, which may give rise to serious procedural complications if the trial is bifurcated; and (v) An order of conviction or acquittal cannot be set aside merely because a joint or separate trial was possible; interference is justified only where prejudice or miscarriage of justice is shown. (Para 16) A unilateral order for a separate charge sheet and segregated trial, passed without notice or application, violates the basic principles of procedural fairness inherent in Article 21. – Mere physical presence of counsel cannot be equated with a meaningful opportunity of hearing. Natural justice requires that the party likely to be affected by an order must have prior notice and a fair opportunity to present objections. In the absence of any indication that segregation was under consideration, the requirement of a fair hearing was not satisfied. (Para 17-18)
Constitution of India - Article 14- All persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the laws. This principle extends beyond mere formal equality and requires that legal procedures be applied fairly and uniformly, irrespective of an individual’s public position or status. The right to equal access to justice is an essential facet of the rule of law, and no person – whether a sitting MLA or an ordinary citizen – can be subjected to procedural disadvantage or preferential treatment without express legal justification. (Para 23)
Case Info
The case is
Case Name and Neutral Citation
- Case Name: Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1113
Coram (Judges)
- Coram: J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan
Judgment Date
- Date of Judgment: September 12, 2025
Caselaws and Citations Referred
- Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of IndiaCitation: (2024) 1 SCC 185
- Nasib Singh v. StateCitation: 2021 OnLine SC 94
- State of A.P. v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara RaoCitation: AIR 1963 SC 1850
- R. Dinesh Kumar v. StateCitation: (2015) 7 SCC 497
- Chandra Bhal v. State of U.P.Citation: (1971) 3 SCC 983 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 290
- Essar Teleholdings Ltd. v. CBICitation: (2015) 10 SCC 562 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 117
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973)
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Sections 218–223)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 148, 149, 153A, 379A, 395, 397, 427, 436, 506, 201, 120B, 107, 180)
- Constitution of India
- Article 14 (Equality before law)
- Article 20(2) (Protection against double jeopardy)
- Article 21 (Right to fair trial and speedy trial)
Q&A Created Using NotebookLM
1. What is the general rule regarding separate and joint trials under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)?
The general rule under Section 218 of the Cr.P.C. is that each distinct offense shall be tried separately. However, Sections 219 to 223 carve out specific exceptions where joint trials are permissible. These exceptions are allowed when offenses are of the same kind, committed within a certain period, or, most relevant to this case, when different offenses are committed by persons in the course of the same transaction (Section 223(d)). The legislative intent behind these provisions is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, avoid conflicting judgments, and promote judicial economy while ensuring fairness.
2. How did the Supreme Court interpret its earlier directions in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India in the context of this case?
The Supreme Court clarified that its directions in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of criminal cases involving MPs/MLAs and called for principal district judges to allocate such cases to designated courts. However, the Court explicitly stated that these directions do not confer any procedural disadvantage upon an accused legislator, nor do they authorize deviation from the mandatory legal norms governing joint trials, or permit separate charge-sheets or trials solely on the basis of an accused's political status. The trial court's reliance on these directions to justify segregation was therefore deemed a misapplication.
3. What are the key principles that govern the decision to conduct joint or separate trials, as outlined by the Supreme Court in Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab?
Drawing from Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab and other precedents, the Supreme Court reiterated several key principles:
- Separate trial is the rule under Section 218 Cr.P.C., while a joint trial is an exception, permissible when offenses form part of the same transaction or conditions in Sections 219-223 are met, and even then, it's a matter of judicial discretion.
- The decision for a joint or separate trial should ordinarily be made at the outset of proceedings for cogent reasons.
- The two paramount considerations are whether a joint trial would prejudice the accused and whether it would cause delay or wastage of judicial time.
- Evidence recorded in one trial cannot be imported into another, posing procedural complications if a trial is bifurcated.
- A conviction or acquittal should not be set aside merely because a different trial format was possible, but only if prejudice or miscarriage of justice is demonstrably shown.
4. What specific errors did the trial court make in ordering the segregation of Mamman Khan's trial?
The trial court made several errors:
- It ordered segregation solely based on Mamman Khan's status as an MLA and the perceived need for an expeditious trial, misapplying the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay directions.
- It did not record any finding that a joint trial would delay proceedings or cause prejudice to the appellant, instead inverting the principle by segregating a regularly appearing accused due to the non-appearance of others.
- The order was passed suo motu (on its own motion) without prior notice or an application from the prosecution, denying the appellant an opportunity of hearing, which constitutes a violation of natural justice and procedural fairness.
- The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the police to file a separate charge sheet, as the discretion to file charge sheets lies exclusively with the investigating agency.
5. How did the Supreme Court connect the trial court's actions to constitutional principles like Article 14 and Article 21?
The Supreme Court found that the trial court's actions violated fundamental constitutional principles:
- Article 14 (Equality before law): The Court emphasized that all accused stand equal before the law, and preferential segregation based on political office militates against the equality principle. Arbitrary classification based on status, without legal or factual necessity, undermines the integrity of the criminal justice process.
- Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty, including fair trial): The Court stated that a fair trial is an essential guarantee under Article 21. Departing from established legal procedure, especially without hearing the affected party, constitutes a serious constitutional infraction. The unilateral order for a separate charge sheet and segregated trial, passed without notice, violated the basic principles of procedural fairness inherent in Article 21. While a speedy trial is an aspect of Article 21, it cannot be achieved by compromising the fundamental rights of the accused.
6. What was the final decision of the Supreme Court in Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana?
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders of the trial court (dated 28.08.2024 and 02.09.2024) and the High Court (dated 12.12.2024). The direction to file a separate charge sheet against Mamman Khan and the consequential segregation of his trial were quashed. The matter was remitted to the trial Court with a direction to conduct a joint trial of the appellant along with the co-accused, in accordance with law. The trial court was permitted to regulate the schedule of proceedings for expeditious disposal, but only after hearing all concerned parties and without compromising procedural safeguards.
