IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI DATE: 19.01.2026 Between :

Gardas Ramesh … Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-500 004, and sixteen others.

… Respondents.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 17 not consolidating in all the crimes pending with the Respondents No. 8 to 17 by clubbing to conduct joint trial as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice, and offends the Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequentially direct the Respondents No. 2 to 17 to club all the crimes, which are pending with the Respondents No. 8 to 17 to conduct joint trial to evade confliction of judgment and pass such other order or orders…”

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of all the respondents, submits that ten criminal cases are presently pending against the petitioner. Upon completion of investigation in each case, charge sheets were duly filed, and the respective cases were taken on file as Calendar Cases before the competent criminal courts. All such cases are now pending trial. He further submits that the petitioner’s prayer for consolidation of these cases and for a joint trial is legally untenable, as the offences were registered in different jurisdictions and arise out of distinct causes of action. It is contended that neither the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) nor its successor, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), contains any provision empowering the Court to consolidate criminal cases pending before Courts of different territorial jurisdictions for the purpose of conducting a joint trial. Consequently, the petitioner’s plea lacks statutory foundation and is liable to be rejected.

4. I have perused the materials on record.

5. As per the record, ten criminal cases are pending against the petitioner before various Courts situated in Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy, Sangareddy, and Karimnagar Districts. The petitioner seeks a direction to consolidate these cases and to conduct a joint trial, ostensibly to avoid the possibility of conflicting findings and judgments. However, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the petitioner has failed to refer to any enabling provision in law permitting such consolidation. Under Sections 218 to 223 of the Cr.P.C. (now corresponding to Sections 243 to 248 of the BNSS), joint trials are permissible only under limited circumstances, namely, where offences are part of the same transaction, or where multiple persons are charged with the same or connected offences. The essential test, as laid down in judicial precedents is whether the offences are so interlinked by proximity of time, place, or purpose that they constitute a “same transaction.”

6. In the instant matter, each of the alleged offences arises from separate incidents, based on distinct complaints and different causes of action, and were registered at different police stations having separate territorial jurisdictions. Therefore, they cannot be said to form part of the same transaction so as to warrant a joint trial under Section 223 of the Cr.P.C. or its equivalent provision in the BNSS. Each case must be adjudicated on its own merits, on the basis of its specific evidence and witnesses. Furthermore, as consistently held by the Supreme Court, convenience of the accused alone cannot constitute a valid ground for transfer or consolidation of criminal proceedings. The administration of criminal justice primarily aims to ensure a fair trial and proper appreciation of