Joint trials for similar offences are permissible but not mandatory; discretion lies with the trial court based on the specific circumstances of the case.

ORDER

Looking to the issue involved in the matters and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these revision petitions are heard finally and decided by this common order.

2. This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity “ Cr.P.C .”) by the petitioner assailing the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, designated under POCSO Act, District Anuppur, in Special Case No.03/2025, whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Section 242 of BNSS, 2023 has been rejected.

3. The Short facts relevant to the present revision petition is that Police Station Kotwali, District Anuppur has registered three crimes against the petitioner/accused with respect to the offence punishable under Sections 74 of BNS and Section 7/8, 9C, 9F and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’). After completion of the investigation, final report has been submitted to the trial Court.

4. In Special Case No.01/2025 which is arising out from Crime No.38/2025, an application under Section 242 of BNSS was filed by the petitioner/accused stating that Special Cases No.02/2025 and 03/2025 are also pending with the trial Court. In all three cases, offences were registered with the Police Station Kotwali, District Anuppur on the same day i.e. 25.01.2025. All three offences are said to have been committed within a period of one year, which are similar in nature.

Therefore, petitioner/accused be charged and tried together in one trial.

5. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 23.07.2025 has held that in all three cases the time of the incident as well as victims are different. Further there is no sufficient ground to try cases in one trial. Trial Court dismissed the application. Hence this revision.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has submitted that the provisions of Section 242 of BNSS provides for joint trial. He further submitted that since it is undisputed that all three offences said to have been committed in a year and all offences are similar in nature, therefore, trial Court should try them together in one trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the conducting separate trial is against the provision of Section 242 of BNSS. Therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order.

7. In support of his contention he placed reliance on Ramji Missir and another Vs. The State of Bihar , 1963 AIR 1088 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Jogendra Singh , 1963 AIR 1964.

8. On other hand learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that the provisions of Section 242 of BNSS are not mandatory. All offences have been committed on different time against different victims. Therefore, separate trial would be convenient.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. Section 241 of BNSS 2023 provides a general rule that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately. Further sections 242, 243, 244 and 246 of Cr.P.C are providing circumstances wherein the Court can deviate from the general rule of the separate charge and trial.

11. It is apposite to reproduce the provision of 242 of BNSS, which is analogues to Section 219 of Cr.P.C ., 1973 reads as under:-

“242. 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 five.

(2) Offences are