Summary and Analysis of Mamman Khan vs State of Haryana 2025 INSC 1113

1. Heading of the Judgment

Mamman Khan vs. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal Nos. 4002-4003 of 2025, arising from SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1829 of 2025 & 18089 of 2024)
Date of Judgment: September 12, 2025
Coram: Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Citation: 2025 INSC 1113

2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions

This judgment primarily interprets and applies the following laws:

• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
  Sections 218: Establishes the general rule that for every distinct offence, there shall be a separate charge and a separate trial.
  Sections 219 to 223: Provide exceptions to the general rule in Section 218, allowing for the joinder of charges and joint trials of persons under specific circumstances.
  Section 223(d): Specifically allows persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction to be charged and tried together.

• The Constitution of India:
  Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
  Article 21: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, interpreted to include the right to a fair and speedy trial.
  Article 20(2): Protects against double jeopardy, prohibiting punishment for the same offence more than once.

3. Basic Details of the Case

This criminal appeal was filed by Mamman Khan, a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Haryana, challenging the orders of the lower courts that had segregated his trial from that of his co-accused.

• The Incident: The case arose from large-scale communal violence in Nuh district, Haryana, on July 31, 2023. Two FIRs (Nos. 149 and 150 of 2023) were registered, alleging offences like rioting, dacoity, mischief by fire, and criminal conspiracy (Sections 148, 149, 153A, 395, 436, 120B IPC, etc.).

• The Accused: The appellant, Mamman Khan, along with numerous other individuals (43 accused in FIR 149 and 28 in FIR 150), was named as an accused. The prosecution's case was based on a single, overarching conspiracy, relying on common evidence like call records, video footage, and witness statements against all accused.

• The Impugned Orders: The Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh), via orders dated August 28, 2024, and September 2, 2024, directed the police to file a separate charge sheet against the appellant and segregated his trial from the joint trial of the co-accused.

• Reason for Segregation: The Trial Court stated two reasons:
  The trial was being delayed due to the repeated non-appearance of many co-accused.
  Since the appellant was a sitting MLA, the case needed to be prioritized and heard on a day-to-day basis as per the Supreme Court's directions in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2024) 1 SCC 185.

• High Court's Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the appellant's petitions challenging the segregation orders.

• Supreme Court Appeal: The appellant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the segregation was illegal and violated his fundamental rights.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court, and directed that the appellant's trial be held jointly with that of the co-accused.

A. Core Legal Issue: Validity of the Trial Segregation

The central question was whether the Trial Court's decision to conduct a separate trial for the appellant solely because he was an MLA and to ensure a speedy trial was legally permissible under the CrPC and the Constitution.

The Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning:

1. Violation of the Statutory Scheme under CrPC (Sections 218-223):
The Court conducted a detailed analysis of the CrPC's framework governing joinder of trials. It held:

• The general rule under Section 218 is a separate trial for each distinct offence.

• However, Sections 219 to 223 are exceptions that permit joint trials to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, avoid conflicting judgments on the same evidence, and promote judicial economy.

• Section 223(d) specifically allows persons accused of different offences committed in the "same transaction" to be tried together.

• In this case, the prosecution's own case was built on a single conspiracy and relied on common evidence against all accused. Therefore, the alleged offences were indisputably part of the same transaction.

• The Court held that a joint trial was not just permissible but was the mandatory norm in such circumstances. A separate trial is an exception to be used sparingly, only when there is a risk of prejudice to the accused or severe judicial delay, which was not established here.

2. Misapplication of Precedent (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Case):
The Trial Court had justified the segregation by citing the Supreme Court's directions in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay for the expeditious disposal of cases against MPs/MLAs. The Supreme Court clarified this was a complete misapplication of the precedent.

• The directions in that case were meant to ensure priority hearing and day-to-day trials for legislators to curb undue delays.

• These directions were never intended to override statutory procedures or sanction a separate trial that deviates from the CrPC's scheme. Expedition cannot be achieved by compromising an accused's right to a fair procedure.

• The proper course would have been to prioritize the joint trial itself or to segregate the trials of the absconding or defaulting accused, not the appellant who was regularly appearing in court.

3. Violation of Fundamental Rights (Articles 14 and 21):
The Court held that the segregation order violated the appellant's fundamental rights:

• Article 14 (Right to Equality): Segregating the trial solely based on the appellant's status as an MLA amounted to an arbitrary classification. It granted him a procedural disadvantage not faced by his co-accused, militating against the principle that all are equal before the law.

• Article 21 (Right to Fair Trial): The order was passed suo motu by the Trial Court without any application from the prosecution and, crucially, without giving the appellant a prior notice or opportunity to be heard. This violated the fundamental principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem - hear the other side), which are an integral part of a fair trial under Article 21.

• The Court also noted that holding separate trials on the same evidence would lead to duplication, force witnesses to testify multiple times, create a risk of inconsistent verdicts, and could potentially offend the protection against double jeopardy.

4. Prejudice to the Accused:
The Court emphasized that a separate trial would cause serious prejudice to the appellant. It would allow the prosecution to tailor its case based on the evidence and cross-examination that takes place in the first concluded trial (that of the co-accused), thereby severely undermining the appellant's right to a fair defence.

B. Supreme Court's Directions and Final Outcome

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Mamman Khan.

• The impugned orders of the Trial Court (dated 28.08.2024 and 02.09.2024) and the judgment of the High Court (dated 12.12.2024) were set aside.

• The direction to file a separate charge sheet and the consequential segregation of the appellant's trial were quashed.

• The matter was remitted back to the Trial Court with a direction to conduct a joint trial of the appellant along with the co-accused, in accordance with the law.

• The Trial Court was given the liberty to regulate the schedule to ensure an expeditious disposal of the case, but it must do so after hearing all parties and without compromising any procedural safeguards.

This judgment serves as a strong reaffirmation that the pursuit of a speedy trial, however noble, must always be conducted within the framework of established law and procedure, and must never come at the cost of an accused's fundamental right to equality and a fair trial.