Trial Court Must Determine Whether Additional Accused To Be Tried Jointly Or Separately; Main Case Proceeds Independently: J&K&L High Court

The Court clarified that once a separate trial is contemplated, the proceedings in the main case need not be deferred and may continue independently in accordance with the law.

The Court was hearing a bail application arising out of a case registered under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, wherein the petitioner sought release on the ground of prolonged incarceration and delay in the conclusion of the trial.

A Single Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed: “even in instances where an additional accused is summoned, the trial Court must determine whether such accused is to be tried jointly or separately. Should the Court determine that a separate trial is necessitated, it must proceed with the main case independently.”

The petitioner was arrested in connection with a case involving recovery of contraband of commercial quantity and had remained in custody for a substantial period. The trial had progressed to an advanced stage, with prosecution evidence having already been concluded and the matter listed for final arguments.

At this stage, the prosecution informed the trial court that a supplementary complaint had been filed against another accused. On account of the said development, the trial court deferred the proceedings in the petitioner's case, awaiting the outcome of proceedings against the newly added accused.

The petitioner challenged this deferment, contending that it had resulted in an indefinite delay in the conclusion of the trial, despite the case being ripe for final adjudication.

The Court examined the manner in which the trial court had proceeded and found that the deferment of proceedings was not based on any reasoned judicial determination. It noted that the trial court had failed to consider whether the case required a joint trial or whether the proceedings could continue independently.

The Court recorded that the deferment had resulted in an unjustified delay in the petitioner's trial, observing that such postponement had created an “unwarranted and indefinite hiatus in the petitioner's trial.”

Emphasising the requirement of judicial application of mind, the Court held that the trial court was obligated to decide, upon summoning of an additional accused, whether the circumstances warranted a joint trial or a separate trial. It observed that “the trial court has deferred the proceedings… in a mechanical manner rather than a reasoned judicial determination.”

The Court further relied upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2022), particularly with respect to the procedure to be followed when additional accused are summoned. It held that such summoning does not automatically warrant deferment of the entire trial.

Clarifying the legal position, the Court observed: “once a separate trial is contemplated or implied, there exists no legal impediment preventing the trial Court from proceeding with the main case independently.”

The Court also noted that the petitioner's case had already reached the stage of final arguments and that postponement of proceedings solely on account of a supplementary complaint against another accused was not justified in law.

The Court held that the trial court erred in deferring the proceedings without deciding whether the additional accused was to be tried jointly or separately, and without recording reasons for such deferment.

Accordingly, while declining to grant bail at that stage, the Court directed the trial court to consider and decide the issue of deferment afresh, in accordance with law, within a specified time frame. Liberty was also granted to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief depending upon the outcome of such consideration.

Case Title: Afroz Ahmed Sheikh v. Narcotics Control Bureau Jammu Zone

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment