Gangsters Act Cannot Become a Shield to Stall Murder Trials: Supreme Court Rules That Section 12 Gives Priority Only When Hearing Dates Clash

Case Name: Keshvendra Singh v. Shankar Singh and Another

Date of Judgment: 17 August 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 866

Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli

Held: The Supreme Court held that Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 does not require every other criminal proceeding pending against an accused to be suspended until the trial under the Gangsters Act is concluded. The provision merely gives precedence to the Gangsters Act trial when the dates fixed in the two proceedings clash. Its object is to ensure the expeditious conduct of the Gangsters Act trial and prevent scheduling conflicts, not to indefinitely freeze trials for serious predicate offences such as murder, rape, dacoity or robbery.

The Court held that Section 12 of the Gangsters Act must be harmoniously construed with Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which mandates the day-to-day continuation of criminal trials and restricts unnecessary adjournments. An interpretation permitting the accused to halt a substantially concluded murder trial merely because a subsequent Gangsters Act case is pending would violate the constitutional mandate of a speedy trial under Article 21 and cause grave injustice to the victim.

Summary: The case arose from the alleged murder of Raghvendra Singh, who was stated to have been brutally assaulted with lathis, stones and metal rods. His brother, Keshvendra Singh, lodged FIR No. 0342 of 2023 on 30 September 2023 at Police Station Talbehat, District Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh. Nine persons were accused of offences under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Following investigation, charge sheets were filed against seven accused persons, and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court as Session Trial No. 934 of 2023.

Subsequently, the police prepared a gang chart alleging that the accused had committed the offence as members of an organised gang. On that basis, FIR No. 0001 of 2024 was registered under Section 2(b)(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. While the Gangsters Act case remained at an initial stage, the murder trial had progressed substantially. Charges had been framed on 26 February 2024, and the prosecution evidence was completed by 8 January 2025. The case was thereafter fixed for recording the statements of the accused under Section 313 CrPC.

At this advanced stage, the accused filed an application seeking suspension of the murder trial on the ground that Section 12 of the Gangsters Act required the trial before the Special Court to be concluded before any other criminal case against them could proceed. The Sessions Court rejected the application on 3 March 2025. It observed that the Gangsters Act trial had not even commenced, whereas the prosecution evidence in the murder case had already concluded. The Sessions Court found no conflict of dates and held that staying the murder trial would frustrate, rather than advance, the administration of criminal justice.

Interpreting Section 12, the Supreme Court clarified that the expression stating that another trial “shall remain in abeyance” must be understood in light of the provision’s underlying purpose. Relying upon Dharmendra Kirthal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) , the Court explained that Section 12 was enacted to ensure that the accused is not compelled to face simultaneous proceedings on conflicting dates and that the Gangsters Act trial is not delayed due to scheduling clashes. It was never intended to place all other criminal trials in indefinite suspension.

The Court further held that Section 12 must be read harmoniously with Section 346 BNSS and Section 309 CrPC. These provisions require criminal proceedings to continue from day to day until the witnesses in attendance have been examined and permit adjournments only for recorded and sufficient reasons. Staying a murder trial in which the prosecution evidence had already concluded would directly contradict this statutory mandate.

The Supreme Court emphasised that the right to a speedy trial is not an exclusive privilege of the accused. It is also a valuable right of the victim. An interpretation allowing the accused to stall the trial of the underlying offence merely because Gangsters Act proceedings have subsequently been initiated would turn Section 12 into a tool for delaying justice. Such delay may cause evidence to disappear, weaken the recollection of witnesses and discourage them from testifying. The Court warned that this interpretation would make a mockery of the judicial process and could render Section 12 vulnerable to challenge under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 25 August 2025. It restored the legal position that the pendency of proceedings under the Gangsters Act does not automatically suspend other criminal trials against the same accused. Priority under Section 12 arises only when the hearing dates fixed in the Gangsters Act case and the other criminal case clash.

During the pendency of the appeal, the Supreme Court had stayed the High Court’s order on 13 April 2026 and directed the Sessions Court to conclude the murder trial within two months.