Short answer. Possibly, but it isn't automatic. Rule 119, Section 22 allows charges for offenses founded on the same facts, or forming part of a series of offenses of similar character, to be tried jointly — but only at the discretion of the court. There is no absolute right to consolidation.
What the law says
Charges for offenses founded on the same facts or forming part of a series of offenses of similar character may be tried jointly at the discretion of the court.
Rule 119, Section 22 — Consolidation of trials of related offenses. Read the full provision →
Two grounds for joint trial
Section 22 recognizes two situations where joining charges makes sense: offenses founded on the same facts, meaning they arise from the same underlying events, and offenses that form part of a series of offenses of similar character, meaning a pattern of comparable acts even if the specific facts differ from case to case. A series of similar thefts committed against different victims, for instance, could potentially qualify under the second ground even without sharing the exact same set of facts. This second ground does not require the offenses to be identical — only that they share a recognizable pattern in method, victim type, or timing, so that trying them together avoids duplicating largely the same witnesses and evidence across separate proceedings.
It is discretionary, not a matter of right
The rule's key qualifier is 'at the discretion of the court.' Even where charges plainly satisfy one of the two grounds, the accused cannot demand joint trial as an entitlement — the court weighs considerations like judicial efficiency, potential prejudice, and manageability before deciding whether to consolidate. A party who believes consolidation would be unfair, or who wants the efficiency of a joint trial, generally has to raise the issue and persuade the court rather than assume the outcome. Courts typically look at whether the offenses involve the same parties and overlapping evidence, whether a joint trial would confuse the issues or unfairly prejudice one of the accused, and whether the charges are already at a similar stage of proceedings before granting or denying a motion to consolidate.
Why this matters strategically
Joint trial can save time and avoid repetitive testimony across cases sharing the same facts, but it can also mean evidence from one charge colors the fact-finder's view of another. Because Section 22 leaves the call to the court's discretion, either the prosecution or the defense may need to make the case for or against consolidation rather than assume it will happen. The rule does not cover charges that share nothing but the same accused or the same court calendar; without a factual or pattern link between the offenses, a motion to consolidate them has no basis under Section 22 regardless of how convenient joining them might be for scheduling.