JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.5.2011 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No. 1, Udaipur, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the petitioner's application for consolidating the case along with Sessions Case No. 125/2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a criminal case was registered against twelve persons, out of whom eleven were arrested and charge-sheet was filed against them. Since the petitioner was absconding, the charge-sheet against him was filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C. against him. Subsequently, he was arrested in the year 2010. The witnesses in Criminal Case No. 125/2009 have already been examined and many of them are eye-witnesses. However, after the arrested of the petitioner, a supplementary charge-sheet has been filed; vide order dated 22.2.2011 charges for offences under Sections 147, 148, 324/149, 307/149 and 302/149 I.P.C. and for offence under Section 4/25 Arms Act, were framed against the petitioner. Subsequently, he moved an application seeking consolidation of his particular case, Criminal Case No. 46/2001 along with Sessions No. 125/2009. However, vide order dated 10.5.2011, the learned Judge has dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that in his application he has clearly stated that he does not wish to cross-examine all the witnesses. In fact, he is interested only in cross-examining three witnesses, who have been produced by the prosecution. Therefore, the reasoning given by the learned Judge that the application is a clever ploy by the petitioner and other co-accused persons to delay the trial, does not hold water. He has further contended that under Section 223(1)(a), the cases should be consolidated. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Bhagat Dadhich, the learned counsel for the complainant, has contended that the learned Judge has given four reasons for dismissing the application. Thus, sufficient reasons have been assigned by the learned Judge. Thus, impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has echoed the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 7. Thus, sufficient reasons have been assigned by the learned Judge. Thus, impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has echoed the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 7. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has given four reasons for dismissing the application; firstly, that since the petitioner himself absconded, his conduct is such, that does not call for sympathies; secondly, that in the bail applications, which were submitted by the co-accused persons, this Court has clearly directed the trial Court to complete the trial within a period of six months. If the cases were to be consolidated, the upper limit of six months would be crossed; thirdly, since a supplementary charge-sheet' has been filed, it does not entitle the petitioner to claim a right for consolidating the cases; and fourthly and most importantly, according to Pritam Singh, he had' given statement under duress. He had subsequently filed an application that his testimony should be re-recorded. Similar applications for recalling Pritam Singh was filed by other co-accused parsons. These applications filed under Section 311 have already been rejected. When the co-accused persons had challenged the rejection order before this Court, this Court had also rejected the revision petitions. Now, the same request was being made by the petitioner. 8. A person, who runs away from the law, should not expect the Court to rush to his rescue. Admittedly, the petitioner had absconded for a period of two years. Therefore, he cannot claim, by way of right, that the trial Court should be consolidated. In fact, Section 223 Cr.P.C. uses the word 'may' and not the word 'shall'. Therefore, a discretion has been bestowed on the trial Court to consolidate the cases or not to consolidate the cases. In the present case, the trial Court has given cogent reasons for not consolidating the cases. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition, being devoid of merit; is, hereby, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******