Connected proceedings cannot be consolidated after they have already concluded.

The petitioner sought to have the pending trial in FIR No. 207/2007 tried alongside three connected FIRs, Nos. 180/2007, 181/2007 and 182/2007, and challenged the Trial Court’s order dated 29 July 2026.

He alleged that the order curtailed his right to lead defence evidence under Section 243 Cr.P.C. and also alleged bias on the part of the Trial Court.

The three other proceedings had already concluded.

The challenged order listed the matter for the accused’s written submissions under Section 313(5) Cr.P.C. and final arguments, in the context of an earlier direction to expedite the trial; the petitioner had filed those written submissions.

He invoked Amit Katyal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2026 INSC 509, in support of clubbing the trials.

1. Whether the pending proceedings in FIR No. 207/2007 should be clubbed with the three connected FIRs, which had already concluded, in reliance on Amit Katyal.

2. Whether the Trial Court’s order dated 29 July 2026 warranted interference on the grounds that it curtailed the petitioner’s right to lead defence evidence or reflected bias.

3. Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 BNSS to grant the reliefs sought.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; the Court considered whether there was a justifiable basis to exercise that jurisdiction.

The petitioner relied on Section 243 Cr.P.C. concerning the defence stage and on Amit Katyal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2026 INSC 509, concerning joint trial of proceedings arising from the same transaction; the Court held that Amit Katyal did not apply in the circumstances because the other three proceedings had already culminated.

The Court also noted the Trial Court’s listing of the case for written submissions under Section 313(5) Cr.P.C. and final arguments.

The Court declined to direct a joint or consolidated trial because the three other FIR proceedings had already concluded, leaving no occasion to grant the requested clubbing relief; accordingly, Amit Katyal was inapplicable.

As to the challenged order, the Court noted that the proceedings were at the stage of written submissions and final arguments, that the petitioner had filed his Section 313(5) Cr.P.C. written submissions, and that the Trial Court had been directed to expedite disposal.

It further found that the petitioner’s allegations of bias were unsupported by concrete material or evidence, and that the petition disclosed no justifiable ground for intervention.

It dismissed the petition in limine, together with the pending applications, without costs.