Supreme Court Allows Murder Trial Despite Pending Gangsters Act Case; Holds Section 12 Gives Priority Only on Clashing Dates, Protects Victim’s Speedy Trial Right
Supreme Court Sets Aside Stay on Murder Trial; Holds Pending Gangsters Act Case Does Not Require Other Criminal Proceedings to Remain in Abeyance
Facts
The appellant, Keshvendra Singh, is the brother of deceased Raghvendra Singh. He lodged FIR No. 0342 of 2023 on 30 September 2023 at Police Station Talbehat, Lalitpur, alleging that nine accused persons, including Respondent No. 1, brutally assaulted Raghvendra Singh with lathis, stones and metal rods, causing his death.
Following investigation, charge-sheets were filed against seven accused under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302 and 427 IPC. Cognizance was taken on 27 November 2023, and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court as Session Trial No. 934 of 2023.
Meanwhile, the police prepared a Gang Chart alleging that the accused had committed the offence as part of a constituted gang. Consequently, on 1 January 2024, another FIR was registered under Section 2(b)(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
By January 2025, the murder trial had progressed substantially: charges had been framed, the prosecution evidence had been completed, and statements of the accused under Section 313 CrPC were due to be recorded. At that stage, the accused sought to keep the murder trial in abeyance on the ground that Section 12 of the Gangsters Act required the Gangsters Act trial to take precedence.
The Sessions Judge rejected their application. However, the Allahabad High Court reversed that decision and directed that the murder trial remain in abeyance while the Gangsters Act trial was expedited.
The deceased’s brother therefore approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
The principal issue was:
Whether Section 12 of the Gangsters Act mandates that an otherwise progressing criminal trial must be kept entirely in abeyance merely because a Gangsters Act prosecution against the same accused is pending.
More specifically, the Court considered whether the Allahabad High Court was justified in staying Session Trial No. 934 of 2023 and directing that Gangsters Session Trial No. 1 of 2024 be given precedence.
Petitioner’s/Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant/de facto complainant argued that the High Court had misinterpreted Section 12.
According to him, the provision means that where hearing dates in the ordinary criminal trial and Gangsters Act trial clash, the Gangsters Act proceeding must receive priority. It does not mean that the ordinary criminal case must remain completely frozen until the Gangsters Act case concludes.
He particularly stressed the procedural disparity between the two cases. When the accused sought the stay, prosecution evidence in the murder trial had already concluded and Section 313 statements were about to be recorded, whereas only a charge-sheet had been filed in the Gangsters Act case and its trial had not commenced.
Respondent’s Arguments
Respondent No. 1-accused defended the Allahabad High Court’s order and supported the proposition that the Gangsters Act proceeding should receive statutory precedence under Section 12.
The State, however, highlighted the serious consequence of the accused’s interpretation: a brutal murder trial that was close to completion would be stalled merely because proceedings under the Gangsters Act had subsequently commenced.
Analysis of the Law
Section 12 states that a trial under the Gangsters Act before the Special Court shall have precedence over another case against the accused and shall be concluded in preference to the other trial.
The Supreme Court held that the provision must be understood according to its legislative object.
The purpose is not to freeze all other criminal proceedings until completion of the Gangsters Act trial. Rather, the provision ensures that when there is a clash of dates between the two proceedings, the Gangsters Act trial receives priority.
The Court also harmoniously read Section 12 with Section 346 BNSS, corresponding to Section 309 CrPC, which mandates continuation of criminal trials on a day-to-day basis and places stringent restrictions on unnecessary adjournments.
Accordingly, Section 12 cannot be interpreted in isolation to produce indefinite suspension of otherwise progressing criminal trials.
Precedent Analysis
The Court principally relied upon Dharmendra Kirthal v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2013) 8 SCC 368.
In Dharmendra Kirthal, the Supreme Court had explained that Section 12 seeks to prevent simultaneous trials from hampering the Gangsters Act proceeding through clashes in hearing dates. Importantly, the emphasis of the statutory scheme is upon speedy trial, not denial of trial.
The Court also considered Mobin Iftikhar Zaidi v. State of U.P., where the Allahabad High Court had held that Section 12 was not intended to stop trials for serious offences such as murder, dacoity, loot or rape merely because a Gangsters Act proceeding was pending.
On the victim’s rights dimension, the Supreme Court relied upon Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516, which recognises that speedy trial cannot be treated exclusively as an accused’s right. Delay also causes serious prejudice, suffering and anguish to victims.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court found the factual position particularly significant.
When the accused sought suspension of the murder trial, prosecution evidence had already concluded and Section 313 statements were due to be recorded. In contrast, the Gangsters Act trial had not even commenced, as only the charge-sheet had been submitted. There was therefore no clash of hearing dates requiring invocation of Section 12.
The Court further held that Article 21’s guarantee of speedy trial belongs not merely to the accused but also to the victim. Permitting accused persons to invoke a pending Gangsters Act case to stall every other prosecution could cause tremendous injustice, weaken preservation of evidence and affect witnesses’ willingness and memory.
The Supreme Court found the High Court’s reasoning internally contradictory. Although the High Court itself recognised that Section 12 was intended to address clashes of dates rather than stop other proceedings, it nevertheless ordered the murder trial to remain in abeyance. The Supreme Court described that order as “completely untenable.”
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 25 August 2025.
It held, in substance, that Section 12 of the U.P. Gangsters Act does not impose an automatic or blanket stay upon other criminal trials. Its purpose is to give the Gangsters Act proceeding precedence where scheduling conflicts arise, not to indefinitely suspend prosecution of other offences.
Significantly, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s interim order dated 13 April 2026, the Sessions Court had already completed the murder trial and convicted all the accused under Section 302 IPC and other offences.
The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the appeal.
Case Details
Case: Keshvendra Singh v. Shankar Singh & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2815/2026; 2026 INSC 866
Judge: Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli
Date: 17 August 2026
Result: Appeal Allowed; Allahabad High Court order staying the murder trial set aside. The Court held Section 12 Gangsters Act gives priority in case of clashing dates and does not automatically freeze other criminal trials.
