MAMMAN KHAN versus STATE OF HARYANA

MAMMAN KHAN versus STATE OF HARYANA

The segregation order was quashed because it was based solely on the appellant's status as a sitting MLA, not on any legally recognized ground (distinct transaction, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice), the prosecution's case relied on common interlinked evidence, the order was passed suo motu without notice violating procedural fairness under Article 21 and equality under Article 14, and the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the police to file a separate charge-sheet; therefore a joint trial must be conducted and the impugned orders set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Mamman Khan; Respondent: State of Haryana
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Decision on Appeal to the Supreme Court From High Court Judgment Affirming Trial Court Orders
Outcome
Appeals allowed; impugned orders of the trial Court and the High Court set aside and matter remitted to trial Court for joint trial
Legal Topics
Joint Trials, Segregation of Trial, Separate Charge Sheet, Right to Fair Trial, Equality Before Law, Priority Trials for Legislators
Criminal Procedure Constitutional Law Criminal Law Joint Trials Segregation of Trial Separate Charge Sheet Right to Fair Trial Equality Before Law +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mamman Khan

Appellant

State of Haryana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Decision on Appeal to the Supreme Court From High Court Judgment Affirming Trial Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether directing segregation of trial and ordering a separate charge-sheet solely because the accused is a sitting MLA is legally sustainable under the Cr.P.C. and the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The segregation order was quashed because it was based solely on the appellant's status as a sitting MLA, not on any legally recognized ground (distinct transaction, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice), the prosecution's case relied on common interlinked evidence, the order was passed suo motu without notice violating procedural fairness under Article 21 and equality under Article 14, and the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the police to file a separate charge-sheet; therefore a joint trial must be conducted and the impugned orders set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; impugned orders of the trial Court and the High Court set aside and matter remitted to trial Court for joint trial

Orders

  • Order dated 28.08.2024 directing separate charge-sheet and segregation of trial quashed
  • Order dated 02.09.2024 directing separate charge-sheet and segregation of trial quashed