The Supreme Court has clarified that the purpose behind Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Gangsters Act) is not to freeze other proceedings against the accused till proceedings under the Gangsters Act are concluded. The Apex Court further held that the purpose is only to indicate that in the event of a clash of dates, the proceedings under the Gangsters Act would get priority.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court in a murder case.

The Division Bench of Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli held, “In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the purpose behind Section 12 was not to freeze the other proceedings against the accused till proceedings under the Gangsters Act were concluded. The purpose was only to indicate that in the event of clash of dates, the proceedings under the Gangsters Act were to get priority.”

Advocate Varad Kilor represented the Appellant while Advocate Shrirang B. Varma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant, who is the brother of the deceased, lodged an FIR under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302 and 427 of the IPC against 9 accused persons, including the first respondent, on the ground that the deceased Raghavendra Singh was mercilessly assaulted and brutally beaten to death by the accused persons with lathis, stones and metal rods. After a detailed investigation, charge sheets were filed against 7 accused persons in all under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302 and 427 of the IPC and cognisance was taken. A Gang Chart was also prepared and forwarded to the higher authorities. The SHO further lodged an FIR under Section 2(b)(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Gangsters Act) against the said accused persons.

The accused persons filed an application before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, praying to keep the proceedings in the Session Trial in abeyance on the ground that the very same accused persons were also accused in the proceedings under the Gangsters Act and the trial under the Gangsters Act should have precedence over the trial of any other case against the accused. The Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the application. Aggrieved, the first respondent filed a Criminal Revision before the High Court contending that the intention of the legislature was to provide precedence to cases under the Gangsters Act in comparison to any other case against the same accused. The High Court, accepting the contention, directed that Session Trial would be kept in abeyance and the Special Judge would expedite the proceedings of Gangsters Session Trial. It was this order which was challenged before the Apex Court at the behest of the de facto complainant.

Reasoning

Referring to Section 12 of the Gangsters Act, the Bench explained that in the event of a clash of dates, the proceedings under the Gangsters Act were to get priority.

“Harmoniously reading Section 12 of the Gangsters Act with Section 346 of the BNSS (Section 309 of the Code), the conclusion is irresistible that all that Section 12 of the Gangsters Act contemplates is that, in the event of a clash of dates, the proceedings under the Gangsters Act would be given preference”, it added.

Reiterating that Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to speedy trial, the Bench stated, “This Court has held that right to speedy trial is not only the prerogative of the accused but is also a valuable right of the victim and any inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial, could have a deleterious effect on the society in general. If the interpretation canvassed by the respondent-accused is accepted, it will render Section 12 of the Gangsters Act ultra vires Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The Bench was of the view that the Trial Judge, while dismissing the application of the accused, rightly observed that charges had been framed and the prosecution had completed its evidence and statements under Section 313 of the accused were scheduled to be recorded. The Bench noticed that it was at this stage that the accused had filed an application seeking that the trial be kept in abeyance pending conclusion of trial in the Gangsters Act. “The learned trial Judge, on 03.03.2025, had rightly noticed that when the application was rejected, the trial under the Gangsters Act was yet to begin since chargesheet had just been submitted. There was no issue of clash of dates warranting the application of Section 12 of the Gangsters Act”, it added.

Holding that the High Court erred in reversing this order of the trial Judge, the Bench stated that in spite of observing that it was never the intention of the legislature when it enacted the Gangsters Act to stop the proceedings in the case other than the Gangsters Act and Section 12 was intended only to provide a solution when there was a clash of dates, the High Court still in the concluding paragraph recorded a totally contradictory finding and directed the Session Trial to be kept in abeyance.

Thus, allowing the appeal and noting that as per an interim order the Session Trial already stood concluded and the accused stood convicted, the Bench set aside the impugned order of the High Court.

Cause Title: Keshvendra Singh v. Shankar Singh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 866)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Varad Kilor, AOR Anand Dilip Landge

Respondent: Advocates Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande

Click here to read/download Judgment


Tags: