Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana
-
Criminal Appeal Nos. 4002–4003 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1829/2025 & 18089/2024)
Bench
-
Justice J. B. Pardiwala
-
Justice R. Mahadevan (author of the judgment)
Facts
-
Communal violence broke out in Nuh District, Haryana on 31.07.2023.
-
FIR Nos. 149 & 150 (both dated 01.08.2023) were registered against 40+ accused, including Mamman Khan (MLA, Ferozepur Jhirka).
-
Trial Court (Aug–Sept 2024) directed filing of a separate charge-sheet against Mamman Khan and segregated his trial from co-accused.
-
High Court (12.12.2024) upheld this segregation.
-
Mamman Khan appealed.
Appellant’s Contentions
-
Segregation based solely on MLA status → arbitrary & illegal.
-
All offences arose from the same transaction; joint trial mandatory under Section 223 CrPC.
-
Segregation violates Article 14 (equality before law) & Article 21 (fair trial).
-
Trial Court exceeded jurisdiction by directing the police to file a separate charge sheet.
-
Misplaced reliance on Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2024), which only required prioritization of trials of legislators.
Respondent’s Contentions
-
Large number of accused (43 in one FIR, 28 in another) caused delays.
-
Segregation ensured judicial efficiency and speedy trial for the MLA, consistent with Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
-
No prejudice caused to the appellant.
Issues
Whether segregation of the appellant’s trial and filing of a separate charge-sheet solely because he is an MLA was legally sustainable?
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
-
Sections 218–223 CrPC:
-
Separate trials are the rule; joint trials are permitted when offences arise from the same transaction.
-
Purpose: prevent conflicting judgments, avoid duplication, ensure fairness.
-
-
Trial Court’s error:
-
Segregated the MLA without hearing him and suo motu directed police to file a separate charge sheet (which is outside court’s jurisdiction).
-
Proper course: segregate absconding/delaying accused, not an accused who appeared regularly.
-
-
Misuse of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay:
-
That case stressed speedy trials of legislators but did not authorise deviation from CrPC or create procedural disadvantages for MLAs.
-
-
Fair Trial & Equality:
-
Article 14: all accused equal before law—status as MLA cannot justify preferential segregation.
-
Article 21: right to fair trial violated by unilateral segregation order.
-
-
Prejudice & duplication:
-
Same evidence/witnesses against all accused.
-
Separate trial → duplication of proceedings, risk of conflicting findings.
-
Decision
-
Segregation order unsustainable and unconstitutional.
-
Trial Court & High Court orders (28.08.2024, 02.09.2024, 12.12.2024) set aside.
-
Direction: conduct joint trial of Mamman Khan with co-accused.
-
Trial Court free to manage schedule for expedition, but only within bounds of fairness.
Disposition
-
Appeals allowed.
-
Pending applications disposed.
2025 INSC 1113
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4002 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1829 of 2025)
MAMMAN KHAN … APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA … RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4003 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18089 of 2024)
J U D G M E N T
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
Leave granted in both the SLPs.
2. These appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order
dated 12.12.2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh1
, whereby the High Court dismissed the appellant’s petitions bearing
CRM-M-Nos. 61515 and 61516 of 2024, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Criminal
1 Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”
2
Procedure Code, 19732
) seeking to quash the orders dated 02.09.2024 and
28.08.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh3
. By the said orders,
the trial Court directed the prosecution to file a separate charge sheet against the
appellant and ordered segregation of his trial from that of the co-accused in
respect of:
• FIR No.149 dated 01.08.2023 registered under sections 148, 149, 153A,
379A, 395, 397, 427, 436, 506, 201, 120B, 107 of the Indian Penal Code,
18604
, and
• FIR No.150 dated 01.08.2023 registered under sections 148, 149, 153A,
379A, 395, 427, 436, 506, 201, 120B, 107 and 180 IPC, respectively,
both registered at Police Station Nagina, District Nuh.
3. The factual matrix of the present cases is as follows:
3.1. The appellant is a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from
Ferozepur Jhirka Constituency in Haryana and has been arrayed as one of the
accused in FIR Nos.149 and 150 both dated 01.08.2023 registered at Police
Station Nagina, District Nuh, in connection with large-scale communal violence
that took place in the Nuh District on 31.07.2023.
3.2. During the course of investigation, multiple individuals were named as
accused, and joint proceedings commenced before the trial Court. However, by
2 For short, “Cr.P.C”
3 For short, “the trial Court”
4 For short, “IPC”
3
orders dated 28.08.2024 and 02.09.2024, the trial Court directed the concerned
Station House Officer to file a separate charge-sheet against the appellant and
consequently, segregated his trial from that of the co-accused.
3.3. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the police filed separate charge sheets
against the appellant, charges were framed on 25.11.2024, and the prosecution
commenced evidence, with some witnesses already examined.
3.4. Aggrieved by the segregation of his trial, the appellant filed
CRM-M -Nos.61515 and 61516 of 2024 before the High Court for quashing the
aforesaid orders. However, by a common judgment dated 12.12.2024, the High
Court dismissed both petitions, and upheld the segregation.
3.5. Hence, the appellant has come forward with the present appeals before this
Court.
4. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant submitted that the appellant, a sitting MLA, has been falsely implicated
in the FIRs concerning the communal violence in Nuh District on 31.07.2023.
The investigation itself revealed that the appellant was not present at the location
of the incident, and that there is no material evidence linking him to the alleged
offences. Nevertheless, the relief sought herein is confined only to setting aside
the segregation of his trial from that of the co-accused.
4.1. It was contended that the trial Court directed segregation of the appellant’s
trial solely on the ground that he is a sitting MLA, which reasoning is arbitrary,
legally untenable, and amounts to a miscarriage of justice. Section 223(d) Cr.P.C.
4
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.
In the present case, 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.
4.2. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the trial Court placed
reliance on the directions issued by this Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v.
Union of India5
, to justify the segregation. However, 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 chargesheets or trials solely on the basis of accused’s political status.
4.3. Reference was made to the decisions in Nasib Singh v. State6
, State of A.P.
v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao7
, and R. Dinesh Kumar v. State8
, which
establish that when offences form part of the same transaction, a joint trial is
mandatory, and that multiplicity of trials arising from the same incident must be
avoided as it causes injustice, prejudice, and delay.
4.4. It was further urged that the trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by
directing the police to file a separate charge-sheet, as the discretion to file charge5
(2024) 1 SCC 185
6 2021 OnLine SC 94
7 AIR 1963 SC 1850
8
(2015) 7 SCC 497
5
sheets lies exclusively with the investigating agency. Even when separate chargesheets are filed, if the offences arise out of the same transaction, they must
necessarily be tried jointly. Sections 218 – 223 Cr.P.C make it clear that “distinct”
offences refer to unconnected or independent acts. In the present case, the alleged
conspiracy links the appellant with the co-accused, making separate trials legally
impermissible.
4.5. It was argued that segregation would enable the prosecution to tailor its
evidence based on prior cross-examination, thereby causing serious prejudice to
the appellant as well as the co-accused. It would also expose the appellant to
multiple proceedings for the same transaction, in violation of Article 20(2) of the
Constitution (protection against double jeopardy) and the fundamental right to a
fair trial under Article 21.
4.6. Finally, it was submitted that neither delay in the appearance of co-accused
nor the desire for expeditious trial provides lawful justification for segregation.
The Code of Criminal Procedure permits separate trials only in exceptional
circumstances, such as the absconding of co-accused or the existence of distinct
transactions – conditions that are absent in the present case.
4.7. On these grounds, it was prayed that the impugned orders of the trial Court
and the High Court be set aside, and a direction be issued for a joint trial of the
appellant along with the co-accused, in accordance with law.
6
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeals and
submitted that the appellant challenges the legality of the orders dated 28.08.2024
and 02.09.2024 passed by the trial Court in Session Cases arising out of FIR
Nos.150 and 149 of 2023, respectively. By these orders, the trial Court directed
the Station House Officer to file a separate charge-sheet against the appellant,
who is a sitting MLA, and accordingly, segregated his trial from that of the coaccused. In compliance, separate charge sheets were filed against the appellant,
charges were framed on 25.11.2024, and the prosecution has already commenced
evidence with several witnesses having been examined.
5.1. It was contended that the segregation of the appellant’s trial was
necessitated to ensure judicial efficiency, as the presence of 43 accused in FIR
No.149 and 28 accused in FIR No.150 had rendered the conduct of a joint trial
logistically and procedurally cumbersome. Repeated non-appearance of certain
co-accused had already resulted in considerable delay.
5.2. Learned counsel submitted that the segregation was intended to prevent
further delay in proceedings and, in fact, facilitates early disposal. The measure
does not, in any manner, prejudice the appellant’s rights.
5.3. It was further argued that under Section 218 Cr.P.C., the general rule is that
each offence shall be tried separately. While Section 223 enables joint trials, it is
couched in discretionary terms and must be applied only in appropriate cases
depending on the circumstances.
7
5.4. Reliance was placed on Nasib Singh v. State (supra), where this Court held
that the test for permitting a joint trial includes consideration of whether it would
prejudice the accused or cause delay in the proceedings. In the present case, the
appellant failed to establish any real or specific prejudice arising out of the
separate trial.
5.5. Further reliance was placed on Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay wherein, this
Court directed all courts to prioritize expeditious disposal of criminal cases
involving elected public representatives. The action of the trial Court is in
consonance with these directions and is aimed at ensuring speedy adjudication.
5.6. It was submitted that the right to a speedy trial is an essential facet of
Article 21 of the Constitution. The segregation of the appellant’s trial subserves
this constitutional guarantee by enabling timely progress of the case.
5.7. On these premises, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeals
and for upholding of the impugned orders directing segregation of the appellant’s
trial from that of the co-accused, submitting that the same are legally sound,
procedurally proper, and constitutionally justified.
6. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned senior
counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and have
carefully perused the materials available on record.
6.1. On 19.12.2024, when SLP (Crl.) No. 18089 of 2024 was taken up for
consideration, this Court granted an order of stay of further proceedings in
S.C. No. 478 of 2024 pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge
8
(Nuh), Haryana. Subsequently, by order dated 31.01.2025 in SLP (Crl.) Diary
No. 58851 of 2024, this Court granted an order of stay of further proceedings in
S.C. No. 485 / 2024.
7. The principal issue that arises for determination in these appeals is 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, are
legally sustainable.
8. Apparently, FIR Nos.149 and 150 of 2023, were registered in the aftermath
of large-scale communal violence in the Nuh district of Haryana, which resulted
in serious law and order disturbances, loss of lives, and extensive damage to both
public and private property. These FIRs named several individuals, including the
present appellant, and alleged the commission of offences such as rioting,
dacoity, mischief by fire, and criminal intimidation.
9. The prosecution case proceeds on the basis of an overarching conspiracy
said to involve all the accused persons. The charge sheet reflects a consolidated
investigative approach, founded upon common evidence, such as call detail
records, electronic communications, video footage, witness statements, and
forensic reports. It is undisputed that the prosecution relies upon largely common
witnesses and interlinked evidence against all the accused.
10. Despite the unified nature of the allegations, the trial Court ordered
segregation of the appellant’s trial on the premise that proceedings were being
9
delayed due to the repeated non-appearance of certain co-accused. The court also
noted that, since the appellant is a sitting MLA, his trial needed to be taken up on
a day-to-day basis in view of the directions issued by this Court in Ashwini
Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (supra), concerning expeditious disposal of
cases against legislators. Consequently, by orders dated 28.08.2024 and
02.09.2024, the trial Court directed the police to file a separate charge sheet
against the appellant. Agrieved thereby, the appellant preferred Criminal
Miscellaneous Petitions seeking quashing of the proceedings, which came to be
dismissed by the High Court.
11. In the present appeals, the challenge has been confined to the segregation
of the appellant’s trial. The appellant submits that the offences alleged against
him arise out of the same transaction as those involving the co-accused, and
hence, by virtue of Section 223 Cr.P.C., a joint trial ought to have been conducted.
It is not the prosecution’s case that the acts attributed to the appellant are distinct
or severable. According to the appellant, conducting a separate trial would result
in serious prejudice to him and impair his right to a fair trial.
11.1. On the other hand, the respondent contends that segregation was
necessitated by the mandate of this Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (supra),
which requires expeditious disposal of criminal cases involving elected
representatives. It is further stated that the direction was purely procedural and
10
intended to obviate delay caused by the abscondence of certain co-accused, while
ensuring that the trial of the appellant proceeds in a timely manner.
12. Before addressing the question of the legal permissibility of such
segregation, it would be apposite to extract the relevant portions of the trial
Court’s orders dated 28.08.2024 and 02.09.2024, as affirmed by the High Court,
which read as under:
Order dated 28.08.2024
"….
In the present case, one of the accused namely Sh. Mamman Khan is MLA of
Haryana. The present case is not progressing on account of absence of one
accused or the other. On the other hand, as per direction issued by Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the cases of MPs/MLAs are to be decided on priority basis by
taking up the case on day to day basis. The case has been identified for current
action plan and therefore, in the interest of justice and fitness of things, case of
accused Mamman Khan is to be tried separately.
The concerned Ahlmad of this Court is directed to issue notice to SHO of Police
Station Nagina today itself through Naib Court of this Court with direction to
prepare and file a separate challan of accused Mamman Khan.”
Order dated 02.09.2024
“…
One of the accused namely Mamman Khan is sitting MLA of Haryana and
therefore, his case is to be taken up on day to day basis as per instructions issued
by Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time. The case is not proceeding further
as there are large number of accused and some of them are absent and other seek
adjournment on one pretext or the other.
Resultantly, notice be issued to SHO of Police Station Nagina to file separate
challan of accused Mamman Khan on the next date of hearing.”
11
12.1. A plain reading of the above orders makes it clear that the segregation was
directed solely on account of the appellant’s status as an MLA, so as to facilitate
a day-to-day trial in purported compliance with the directions of this Court in
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (supra). Significantly, the record discloses that no
notice was issued to the appellant prior to passing of the segregation order, nor
was there any application filed by the prosecution seeking such a course of action.
The segregation was thus ordered suo motu, without affording the appellant an
opportunity of hearing.
13. The statutory scheme under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is clear.
Sections 218 to 223 lay down the framework governing the joinder and separation
of charges and trials. Section 218 embodies the general rule that each distinct
offence shall be tried separately. However, the Code carves out specific
exceptions to this rule in Sections 219 to 223, where joint trials are permissible
in the interests of justice.
13.1. In particular, Section 223(d) provides that persons accused of different
offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and
tried together. The legislative intent underlying these provisions is three-fold:
(i)to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, (ii) to avoid the risk of conflicting
judgments on the same evidence, and (iii) to promote judicial economy while
ensuring fairness to the accused. For ease of reference, the relevant provisions are
set out below:
12
“218. Separate charges for distinct offences –(1) For every distinct offence of
which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such
charge shall be tried separately:
Provided that where the accused person, by an application in writing, so desires
and the Magistrate is of opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced
thereby, the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed
against such person.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the operation of the provisions of
Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223.
219. Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together –
(1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind
committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such
offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with,
and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three.
(2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount
of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or of
any special or local laws:
Provided that, for the purposes of this section, an offence punishable under
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be deemed to be an
offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under Section 380 of the said
Code, and that an offence punishable under any section of the said Code, or of
any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an
attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt is an offence.
220. Trial for more than one offence –
(1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction,
more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged
with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.
(2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust
or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in sub-section (2) of
Section 212 or in sub-section (1) of Section 219, is accused of committing, for the
purpose of facilitating or concealing the commission of that offence or those
offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts, he may be charged
with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.
(3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate
definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or
punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial
for, each of such offences.
(4) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves
constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person
accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence
constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any
one, or more, of such acts.
13
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall affect Section 71 of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860).
221. Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed –
(1) If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of
several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be
charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of
such charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with
having committed some one of the said offences.
(2) If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in
evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been
charged under the provisions of sub-section (1), he may be convicted of the
offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with
it.
222. When offence proved included in offence charged –
(1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a
combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such
combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be
convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.
(2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce
it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not
charged with it.
(3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt
to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of any minor
offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect
of that minor offence have not been satisfied.
223. What persons may be charged jointly – The following persons may be
charged and tried together, namely:
(a) Persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same
transaction;
(b) Persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or attempt
to commit, such offence;
(c) Persons accused of more than one offence of the same kind, within the meaning
of Section 219 committed by them jointly within the period of twelve months;
(d) Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same
transaction;
(e) persons accused of an offence which includes theft, extortion, cheating, or
criminal misappropriation, and persons accused of receiving or retaining, or
assisting in the disposal or concealment of, property possession of which is
alleged to have been transferred by any such offence committed by the first-named
persons, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such last-named offence;
14
(f) persons accused of offences under Sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) or either of those sections in respect of stolen property the
possession of which has been transferred by one offence;
(g) persons accused of any offence under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860) relating to counterfeit coin and persons accused of any other offence
under the said Chapter relating to the same coin, or of abetment of or attempting
to commit any such offence; and the provisions contained in the former part of
this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to all such charges:
Provided that where a number of persons are charged with separate offences and
such persons do not fall within any of the categories specified in this section, the
Magistrate [or Court of Session] may, if such persons by an application in
writing, so desire, and if he [or it] is satisfied that such persons would not be
prejudicially affected thereby, and it is expedient so to do, try all such persons
together.”
14. In the present case, there is 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, by
misapplying the directions in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (supra).
15. At the outset, the reliance placed by the trial Court and the High Court on
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (supra) appears to be misplaced. As already noticed
earlier, the trial Court, while directing segregation, categorically recorded that in
terms of this Court’s directions, cases of MPs/MLAs are to be prioritised and
taken up on a day-to-day basis. It is no doubt correct that the said judgment
emphasises the need for expeditious disposal of criminal cases involving MPs /
15
MLAs. However, it lays down that it is the responsibility of the Principal District
Judge to allocate, as considered appropriate and effective, criminal cases
involving MPs and MLAs to the designated courts. Further, they do not confer
any procedural disadvantage upon an accused legislator, nor do they authorise
deviation from the mandatory legal norms governing joint trials.
16. The principles governing the conduct of joint or separate trials have been
elaborately dealt with by this Court in Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab (supra),
after a survey of earlier decisions. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
“B. Power to direct joint trial
…
35. Chapter 17 CrPC, 1973 deals with "the charge". Part A comprising of Sections
211 to 217 is titled "form of charges". Part B comprising of Sections 218 to 224 is
titled "joinder of charges".
…
43. The Bench held that holding a separate trial is the rule and a joint trial is the
exception. However, in case the accused persons commit different offences forming
a part of the same transaction, a joint trial would be the rule unless it is proved that
joint trial would cause difficulty: (Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao case9
, AIR pp.
1861-862, para 30)
"30. ... No doubt, as has been rightly pointed out in this case, separate trial
is the normal rule and joint trial is an exception. But while this principle
is easy to appreciate and follow where one person alone is the accused and
the interaction or intervention of the acts of more persons than one does
not come in, it would where the same act is committed by several persons,
be not only inconvenient but injudicious to try all the several persons
separately. This would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of trials involving
avoidable inconvenience to the witnesses and avoidable expenditure of
public time and money. No corresponding advantage can be gained by the
accused persons by following the procedure of separate trials. Where,
however, several offences are alleged to have been committed by several
accused persons it may be more reasonable to follow the normal rule of
separate trials. But here, again, if those offences are alleged not to be
9 State of A.P. v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1850 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 671
16
wholly unconnected but as forming part of the same transaction the only
consideration that will justify separate trials would be the embarrassment
or difficulty caused to the accused persons in defending themselves."
…
48. The Court in Chandra Bhal case10 observed that a separate trial on the charge
of causing the homicidal death of one 'L' was not contrary to law even if a joint
trial of this offence together with others was permissible. The Court also observed
that this matter was required to be considered by the trial court at the beginning of
the trial and is not to be determined on the basis of the result of the trial. The Court
further observed that its attention was not drawn to any material on record
suggesting that prejudice had been caused to the appellant as a result of a separate
trial. It was finally held that the plea of self defence and the argument that both the
offences were committed during the course of the same transaction was rejected by
both the courts below, and that the court would not interfere with concurrent
findings of fact.
49. The judgment in Chandra Bhal case therefore lays down three significant
principles on joint trials:
49.1. A separate trial is not contrary to law even if a joint trial for the offences
along with other offences is permissible.
49.2. The possibility of a joint trial has to be decided at the beginning of the trial
and not on the basis of the result of the trial.
49.3. The true test is whether any prejudice has been sustained as a result of a
separate trial. In other words, a retrial with a direction of a joint trial would be
ordered only if there is a failure of justice.
50. In Essar Teleholdings Ltd. v. CBI
11, R.F. Nariman, J., speaking for a three-Judge
Bench reiterated the principles which have been enunciated in Chandra Bhal.
Further, it was held that even if the conditions stipulated in Section 223 CrPC to
conduct a joint trial have been fulfilled, it may not be desirous to direct a joint trial
if a joint trial would (i) prolong the trial; (ii) cause unnecessary wastage of judicial
time; and (iii) confuse or cause prejudice to the accused, who had taken part only
in some minor offence.
51. From the decisions of this Court on joint trial and separate trials, the following
principles can be formulated:
51.1. Section 218 provides that separate trials shall be conducted for distinct
offences alleged to be committed by a person. Sections 219-221 provide exceptions
to this general rule. If a person falls under these exceptions, then a joint trial for
10 Chandra Bhal v. State of U.P., (1971) 3 SCC 983 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 290
11 (2015) 10 SCC 562 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 1
17
the offences which a person is charged with may be conducted. Similarly, under
Section 223, a joint trial may be held for persons charged with different offences if
any of the clauses in the provision are separately or on a combination satisfied.
51.2. While applying the principles enunciated in Sections 218-223 on conducting
joint and separate trials, the trial court should apply a two-pronged test, namely,
(i) whether conducting a joint/separate trial will prejudice the defence of the
accused; and/or (ii) whether conducting a joint/separate trial would cause judicial
delay.
51.3. The possibility of conducting a joint trial will have to be determined at the
beginning of the trial and not after the trial based on the result of the trial. The
appellate court may determine the validity of the argument that there ought to have
been a separate/joint trial only based on whether the trial had prejudiced the right
of accused or the prosecutrix.
51.4. Since the provisions which engraft an exception use the phrase "may" with
reference to conducting a joint trial, a separate trial is usually not contrary to law
even if a joint trial could be conducted, unless proven to cause a miscarriage of
justice.
51.5. A conviction or acquittal of the accused cannot be set aside on the mere
ground that there was a possibility of a joint or a separate trial. To set aside the
order of conviction or acquittal, it must be proved that the rights of the parties were
prejudiced because of the joint or separate trial, as the case may be.”
From the above, the following propositions stand reiterated:
(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;
18
(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.
16.1. Applying the aforesaid principles, we are of the considered view that the
order of the trial Court directing segregation of the appellant’s trial from that of
the co-accused, cannot be sustained. The only ground recorded was the delay
occasioned by the non-appearance of certain co-accused. The proper course in
such a situation would have been to segregate the absconding or defaulting
accused, not the appellant who was regularly before the court. By doing so, the
trial court inverted the settled principle and thereby committed a manifest error.
No finding was recorded that a joint trial would delay proceedings or cause
prejudice to the appellant.
16.2. Reliance placed by the respondents on Nasib Singh case is misconceived.
That case concerned consolidation of two distinct FIRs arising from unrelated
acts; it does not support the arbitrary splitting of a joint trial. Indeed, it reinforces
that joint trials are not only permissible but preferable where offences arise from
the same transaction and evidence is common, provided no demonstrable
prejudice is shown.
19
17. This Court has consistently held that a fair trial forms part of the guarantee
under Article 21. Departure from established legal procedure – particularly
without hearing the affected party – constitutes a serious constitutional infraction.
The segregation order passed suo motu by the trial court falls short of these
requirements. 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.
18. The contention that the segregation order was passed in the presence of the
appellant’s counsel is equally untenable. 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.
19. It is true that pursuant to the segregation order, separate charge sheets were
filed, charges framed against the appellant, and prosecution evidence has
commenced. However, mere progress of proceedings cannot cure the inherent
illegality in the manner in which segregation was ordered. Procedural fairness
and statutory compliance cannot be sacrificed for administrative convenience or
retrospective justification. Expediency must operate within the bounds of
fairness.
20
20. We also find that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the
police to file a separate charge-sheet against the appellant. The discretion to file
a charge-sheet lies solely with the investigating agency. Even where multiple
charge-sheets are filed, if the offences arise out of the same transaction, they must
be tried together.
21. Most importantly, the appellant’s status as a sitting MLA cannot, by itself,
justify a separate trial. All accused stand equal before the law, and preferential
segregation militates against the equality principle enshrined in Article 14. While
the right to speedy trial is an essential facet of Article 21, it cannot be secured at
the cost of fairness. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (supra) emphasizes expedition,
but nowhere intends that such expedition be achieved by compromising the
fundamental rights of the accused.
22. In the present case, the 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. The High Court, in affirming the segregation order, failed to appreciate
these consequences and confined itself to the discretionary language of section
223 Cr.P.C without evaluating whether the factual circumstances justified such
segregation. Therefore, we hold that the segregation of the appellant’s trial,
21
without any legally recognized justification, is unsustainable in law and violative
of the appellant’s right to a fair trial under Article 21.
23. At this juncture, we deem it necessary to reiterate the foundational
constitutional principle enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, which
guarantees that 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.
23.1. 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.
24. In view of the foregoing, the impugned orders dated 28.08.2024 and
02.09.2024 passed by the trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court in its
judgment dated 12.12.2024 are hereby set aside. The direction to file a separate
22
charge sheet against the appellant and the consequential segregation of his trial
from that of the co-accused are quashed.
25. The matter is 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 shall be at liberty to regulate the schedule of proceedings to ensure
expeditious disposal, but shall do so, without compromising procedural
safeguards and only after hearing all concerned parties.
26. Accordingly, both the criminal appeals are disposed of.
27. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
…………………………J.
[J. B. PARDIWALA]
…………………………J.
[R. MAHADEVAN]
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 12, 2025.
