Case Name: KESHVENDRA SINGH v. SHANKAR SINGH AND ANR. 
Petition No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 003856 / 2026 
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 866
Date of Judgement: 17.08.2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Palli

Relevant Statutes & Provisions: Section 147, Section 323, Section 504, Section 506, Section 302 and Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 2(b)(i) and Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Supreme Court clarified the scope of Section 12 of the Gangsters Act and held that it does not require all other criminal trials against the accused to be kept on hold. The provision only gives priority to the Gangsters Act proceedings when there is a clash of hearing dates. The Court emphasized that trials for serious offences must not be unnecessarily delayed, as speedy justice is a right of both the accused and the victim.

FACTS

The appellant had filed a First Information Report (F.I.R.) against 9 (nine) accused persons including the first respondent herein. Appellant is brother of the deceased who is alleged to have been beaten to death by using lathis, stones and metal rods. The trial commenced in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge. Meanwhile, the report of the Station House Officer (SHO) stated the accused of being part of a constituted Gang, followed by preparation of a Gang Chart. Afterwards, F.I.R. was lodged under Section 2(b)(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Gangsters Act). Application of accused seven to keep the proceedings in abeyance on the ground that he was 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 was dismissed. 

The trial Court referred to Dharmendra Kirthal vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2013) 8 SCC 368  and accordingly observed that the intention of the legislature was not to delay the proceedings and on observing the progress achieved by the trial for offences under Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad accepted the contention that cases under Gangsters Act is to attract precedence than any case under any other Act against the same accused. In effect, the High Court ordered the Session Court to keep proceedings in abeyance. This order is in challenge before the Supreme Court. 

ISSUE

Whether the High Court was justified in directing that Session Trial No. 934 of 2023, then pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge was to be kept in abeyance and in further directing that the proceedings under the Gangsters Act in the Session Trial No. 01/2024 be expedited, in view of the mandatory provision of Section 12 of the Gangsters Act? 

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

The complainant/appellant contended that the High Court has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 12 of the Gangsters Act. The de facto complainant submitted that when the application was filed, the Gangsters Act case was only at the chargesheet stage and its trial had not begun. In contrast, in the Session Trial, the prosecution had completed its evidence and the accused were to be examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

The State contended that Section 12 of the Act is no longer an unsettled legal issue, as its interpretation has already been considered by the courts, however, the present case requires the Court to examine whether a strict and rigid application of Section 12 would result in delaying or stopping the trial of a serious and brutal daylight murder. The Court must therefore consider whether the protection or restriction provided under Section 12 can be applied in a manner that causes the trial of such a grave offence to be stalled or unnecessarily delayed. 

JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS

The Court undertook an exhaustive analysis in all directions as follows:

Object of Section 12 of the Gangsters Act:

The Court referred to the case of Dharmendra Kirthal vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (2013) 8 SCC 368 wherein it was stressed that under Section 12 of the Gangsters Act, the emphasis is on speedy trial and not denial of trial, to prevent clash of dates in trial and to prevent lingering of cases before Special Court. It was further laid down in the referred case that trial in other Courts is not hampered as it remains only in abeyance and the accused has fullest opportunity to defend himself, thus ensuring principles of fair and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Another case relied on by the Court is Mobin Iftikhar Zaidi vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2011 SCC OnLine All 4160, emphasizing on importance of legislative intent, it was pronounced that it cannot be the intention of the legislature that if a person is required in other cases in crimes of such henious nature such as murder, dacoity, loot and rape, etc, the trial of those offences should not proceed further till conclusion of trial under Gangsters Act. 

In this view, the Court in the present case reiterated that the purpose of Section 12 of the Gangsters Act is not to stall the proceedings before other Court or under for offences under other statutes, but only to ensure that there should not be any clash of dates of trial before other Courts and Special Court under the Gangsters Act, thereby meaning that trial under the Gangsters Act and other Act could proceed simultaneously subject only to the condition that the dates should not be same, as in any date bearing trial under Gangsters Act can not be open to conduct trial under any other Act. 

Expediency under Section 346 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS):

The Court stated that Section 346 of BNSS, which is a reincarnation of Section 309 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 mandates for the proceedings to proceed on a day to day basis until all witnesses in attendance are examined, with exception of reasons to be recorded by the Court to deviate from this rule. When Section 12 of the Gangsters Act is read together with Section 346 of the BNSS, it becomes clear that the main purpose of Section 12 is to give priority to proceedings under the Gangsters Act. Therefore, if the dates of the two trials happen to clash, the trial under the Gangsters Act should be taken up first. This does not mean that the other criminal trial has to be completely stopped or kept in abeyance. Rather, the provision only requires the Court to give preference to the proceedings under the Gangsters Act whenever both matters are fixed for hearing on the same date. 

Right of victim to speedy trial:

The Court considered the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution as a significant aspect in the present case. The Court reiterated 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. The Court referred to Rattiram and Others vs. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516 which had relied upon various landmark precedents to reaffirm that “...It is a sacrosanct obligation of all concerned with the justice dispensation system to see that the administration of criminal justice becomes effective, vibrant and meaningful…”. Thus, Section 12 was interpreted to mean that its effect would render all the trials in complete abeyance till the disposal of the case before the Gangsters Act, then it would cause tremendous injustice to the victim and would render preservation of evidence a challenge. 

Decision on facts of the present case:

The Court ruled that the High Court erred in its view, and therefore, the Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court. It opined that the High Court despite noting the findings in the case of Dharmendra Kirthal (Supra) still proceeded to conclude totally contradictory findings and directed the Session Trial No. 934 of 2023 to be kept in abeyance, thus rendering its decision untenable. 

The Court in conclusion cautioned in observing any literal interpretation of Section 12 by keeping all the other trials against same accused in absolute abeyance would act as giving the accused a legal weapon to abuse court proceedings by procrastinating trials in other offences on the pretext of ongoing proceedings in the Special Court under Gangsters Act.