Section 12 Gangsters Act only resolves clash of dates, does not freeze other trials: Supreme Court
A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli held Section 12 of the U.P. Gangsters Act gives priority only on clashing dates, restoring a near-complete murder trial.
The Supreme Court has held that Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 does not require other trials against an accused to be kept in abeyance until proceedings under the Gangsters Act conclude. The provision applies only where there is a clash of dates, giving the Gangsters Act trial priority on those dates.
Deciding a criminal appeal in Keshvendra Singh v. Shankar Singh and Anr., a Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli set aside an Allahabad High Court order that had directed a murder trial — where prosecution evidence was already complete — to be kept in abeyance so a barely-begun Gangsters Act trial could be expedited. The Court restored the Sessions Court order and held that reading Section 12 to freeze other trials would render it contrary to Article 21.
How the dispute reached the Court
The appellant, brother of the deceased Raghvendra Singh, lodged an FIR on 30 September 2023 against nine accused, alleging that the deceased was beaten to death with lathis, stones and metal rods. Charge sheets were filed against seven accused under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302 and 427 of the IPC. The case was committed to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, as Session Trial No. 934 of 2023.
A gang chart was later prepared, and on 1 January 2024 an FIR was registered under Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act against the same accused. On 20 February 2024, a Single Judge of the High Court, disposing a bail application, directed day-to-day hearing so the murder trial concluded within a year.
On 18 January 2025, the accused applied to keep the murder trial in abeyance, arguing the Gangsters Act trial should take precedence. By then, charges had been framed on 26 February 2024, prosecution evidence was complete, and the Section 313 statement was scheduled. The Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the application on 3 March 2025, relying on Dharmendra Kirthal v. State of U.P., (2013) 8 SCC 368.
Respondent No. 1 filed a criminal revision. The High Court, by order dated 25 August 2025, directed the murder trial to be kept in abeyance and the Gangsters Act trial to be expedited. The de facto complainant challenged that order.
What the Court held on Section 12
Section 12 states that a trial under the Act by a Special Court “shall have precedence over the trial of any other case” and that such other case shall remain in abeyance. The Court read this alongside the reasoning in Dharmendra Kirthal, where it was held that the emphasis is on speedy trial and not denial of it, and that the aim is to prevent an accused facing two trials simultaneously and to prevent the Special Court case lingering “owing to clash of dates in trial.”
The Court also cited Mobin Iftikhar Zaidi v. State of U.P., 2011 SCC OnLine All 4160, which held that the legislative intent was to ensure dates in the two proceedings did not clash, not that other trials must halt entirely.
On that basis, the Bench found it “crystal clear” that the purpose of Section 12 was not to freeze other proceedings, but only to give the Gangsters Act trial priority when dates clashed.
Harmonious reading with Section 346 BNSS
The Court read Section 12 alongside Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the successor to Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 346 requires proceedings to continue on a day-to-day basis until witnesses in attendance are examined, and imposes stringent conditions on adjournment.
Reading the two provisions together, the Court concluded that Section 12 contemplates only that, in the event of a clash of dates, the Gangsters Act proceedings would be given preference.
Victim's right to speedy trial
The Bench held that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 belongs to the victim as well as the accused. Accepting the accused's interpretation, it said, would render Section 12 ultra vires Article 21 and hand the accused a means to delay all other cases under the pretext of pending Gangsters Act proceedings.
The Court noted that with delay, preservation of evidence becomes a challenge, witnesses become less forthcoming, and memory fades. It relied on Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516, which recognised speedy trial as an implicit aspect of Article 21 and affirmed that inordinate delay causes acute suffering to victims.
Application to the facts
The Court held the trial Judge had rightly noted that when the abeyance application was rejected on 3 March 2025, the Gangsters Act trial had not begun, as only a charge sheet had been filed, while the murder trial's prosecution evidence was complete. There was no clash of dates warranting Section 12.
The Bench found the High Court had erred in reversing that order. Despite noting Dharmendra Kirthal and accepting that Section 12 addressed only a clash of dates, the High Court recorded a contradictory finding in its concluding paragraph. Its order was held “completely untenable.”
Order
On 13 April 2026, the Court had stayed the High Court order and directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within two months and report compliance. The Sessions Court concluded Session Trial No. 934 of 2023 and convicted all accused under Section 302 of the IPC, among other provisions, and a compliance report was received.
The Court set aside the High Court order dated 25 August 2025 and allowed the appeal.