2025 Supreme(SC) 1684

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Mamman Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4002 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1829 of 2025) With Criminal Appeal No. 4003 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18089 of 2024)
Decided On : 12-09-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Segregation of trial – Unilateral order for a separate charge-sheet and segregated trial, passed without notice or application, violates basic principles of procedural fairness inherent in Article 21.
(2) Procedural fairness and statutory compliance cannot be sacrificed for administrative convenience or retrospective justification – Expediency must operate within bounds of fairness.
(3) Right to equal access to justice is an essential facet of 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.
(4) Joint Trial – Discretion to file a charge-sheet lies solely with investigating agency – Even where multiple charge-sheets are filed, if offences arise out of same transaction, they must be tried together.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 223 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Segregation of trial – Segregation was directed solely on account of appellant’s status as an MLA, so as to facilitate day-to-day trial – Charge-sheet reflects consolidated investigative approach, founded upon common evidence – Despite unified nature of allegations, Trial Court ordered segregation of appellant’s trial on the premise that proceedings were being delayed due to repeated non-appearance of certain co-accused – Segregation was ordered suo motu, without affording appellant opportunity of hearing – There is no allegation that acts attributed to appellant arise from a distinct transaction, or that a joint trial would prejudice prosecution – 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 appellant’s political office – Order of trial Court directing segregation of appellant’s trial from that of co-accused, cannot be sustained – Proper course in such a situation would have been to segregate absconding or defaulting accused, not appellant who was regularly before court – Unilateral order for a separate charge-sheet and segregated trial, passed without notice or application, violates basic principles of procedural fairness inherent in Article 21. (Paras 9, 10, 12.1, 14.1, 16.1 and 17)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 223 – Constitution of India – Article 14 – Segregation of trial – Mere physical presence of Counsel cannot be equated with a meaningful opportunity of hearing – Natural justice requires that party likely to be affected by an order must have prior notice and a fair opportunity to present objections – In absence of any indication that segregation was under consideration, requirement of fair hearing was not satisfied – Mere progress of proceedings cannot cure 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 bounds of fairness – Besides, trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing Police to file a separate charge-sheet against appellant – Discretion to file a charge-sheet lies solely with investigating agency – Even where multiple charge-sheets are filed, if offences arise out of same transaction, they must be tried together – Appellant’s status as a sitting MLA cannot, by itself, justify separate trial – All accused stand equal before law, and preferential segregation militates against equality principle enshrined in Article 14 – While right to speedy trial is an essential facet of Article 21, it cannot be secured at cost of fairness – Segregation of appellant’s trial, without any legally recognized justification, is unsustainable in law and violative of appellant’s right to a fair trial under Article 21 – Right to equal access to justice is an essential facet of 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 – Segregating appellant’s trial solely on account of his political office, in absence of any legal or factual necessity, amounts to arbitrary classification and undermines integrity of criminal justice process – Direction to file separate charge-sheet against appellant and consequential segregation of his trial from that of co-accused quashed – Matter remitted to trial Court with direction to conduct joint trial of appellant along with co-accused, in accordance with law. (Paras 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25)

Facts of the case:

Principal issue that arises for determination in these appeals is whether orders of trial Court, as affirmed by High Court, directing segregation of appellant’s trial from that of co-accused and requiring filing of a separate charge-sheet solely on the ground that appellant is a sitting MLA, are legally sustainable.

Findings of Court:

Trial Court shall be at liberty to regulate schedule of proceedings to ensure expeditious disposal, but shall do so, without compromising procedural safeguards and only after hearing all concerned parties.

Result : Criminal appeals disposed of.