The Supreme Court has clarified that Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 does not require other criminal trials against the same accused to remain suspended until the Gangsters Act case is completed.
A Bench of Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli held that the provision only gives priority to the Gangsters Act trial when there is a clash of dates. It does not “freeze” proceedings in other criminal cases.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from an FIR registered in Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh, concerning the death of Raghvendra Singh. The case was registered under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 302, against nine accused persons. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against seven accused and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court as Session Trial No. 934 of 2023.
Later, proceedings were initiated under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act. A separate Gangsters Act FIR was registered on January 1, 2024, and the matter became Session Trial No. 1 of 2024.
In January 2025, the accused sought to keep the original sessions trial in abeyance, arguing that the Gangsters Act proceedings were required to take precedence under Section 12.
The Sessions Court rejected the request on March 3, 2025. It noted that the prosecution had already completed its evidence by January 8, 2025, while the Gangsters Act trial had not yet commenced.
The Allahabad High Court later took a different view and directed that the original sessions trial be kept in abeyance while the Gangsters Act trial was expedited. The Supreme Court was approached against that order.
Supreme Court's Observation
The Supreme Court relied on its earlier ruling in Dharmendra Kirthal v. State of U.P., where Section 12 had been interpreted as a mechanism to prevent conflicting trial dates and ensure that the Gangsters Act proceedings were not delayed.
The Court observed that the legislative purpose was “not to freeze the other proceedings” but only to give the Gangsters Act trial priority where the dates of the two proceedings clash.
The Bench also considered Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which requires criminal proceedings to generally continue from day to day and places restrictions on unnecessary adjournments. Reading the provisions together, the Court held that Section 12 requires preference for the Gangsters Act proceedings in case of a date clash.
Victim's Right to Speedy Trial
The Court further emphasised that the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is not confined to the accused. It also protects the victim.
The Bench noted that prolonged delay can affect the preservation of evidence and the availability and memory of witnesses. It held that an interpretation allowing every other criminal trial to remain suspended merely because a Gangsters Act case is pending could cause serious injustice.
Decision
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court found that there was no clash of dates when the application to suspend the sessions trial was filed. The Gangsters Act case had only reached the stage of filing of the chargesheet, while evidence in the sessions trial had already been completed.
The Court held that the Allahabad High Court had therefore erred in directing that Session Trial No. 934 of 2023 be kept in abeyance. It described the High Court's direction as “completely untenable.”
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated August 25, 2025 and allowed the appeal. The Court also recorded that, pursuant to its interim order, the sessions trial had already concluded and the accused had been convicted.
Case Details
Case Title: Keshvendra Singh v. Shankar Singh & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2815/2026)
Judge: Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli
Decision Date: August 17, 2026
 and NTPC Limite-300x169.webp)
 Act-300x169.webp)