Facts
The appellant, brother of deceased Raghvendra Singh, lodged an FIR alleging that the accused assaulted and killed the deceased. A Sessions Trial No. 934 of 2023 was instituted for offences including S.302 IPC. Subsequently, a Gangsters Act case was registered against the same accused. When the murder trial had substantially progressed, the prosecution evidence was complete and S.313 CrPC statements were due, the accused sought to keep it in abeyance pending the Gangsters Act trial. The Sessions Court rejected the application, but the Allahabad High Court directed that the murder trial be kept in abeyance under S.12 of the Gangsters Act.
Issues Framed
“whether the High Court was justified in directing that Session Trial was to be kept in abeyance and in further directing that the proceedings under the Gangsters Act in the Session Trial be expedited, in view of the mandatory provision of Section 12 of the Gangsters Act?”
Court’s Reasoning
(a) Meaning and object of S.12: The Court relied on Dharmendra Kirthal v. State of U.P. and held that S.12 is directed toward speedy trial, not suspension of all other proceedings. Its object is to prevent simultaneous trials and resolve a clash of dates by giving precedence to the Gangsters Act trial. — Paras 17–19.
(b) Harmonious reading with S.346 BNSS: S.346 BNSS requires criminal proceedings to continue day-to-day, subject to recorded reasons for adjournment. Read with S.12, the provision confirms that only in case of a clash of dates does the Gangsters Act proceeding receive preference. — Para 22.
(c) Victim’s right to speedy trial: Article 21 protects speedy trial not merely as an accused’s right but also as a valuable right of the victim. A contrary interpretation would permit accused persons to delay other trials merely because Gangsters Act proceedings are pending. — Para 23.
(d) Application to the case: When the application was filed, the Gangsters Act trial had not even commenced, while the prosecution evidence in the murder trial was complete. There was therefore no clash of dates warranting S.12. The High Court consequently erred in directing abeyance. — Paras 25–26.
Held
The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 25.08.2025. The appeal was allowed. The Sessions Trial had, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s interim order, already concluded and the accused had been convicted.
Conclusion
S.12 of the Gangsters Act requires the Gangsters Act trial to receive preference only in the event of a clash of dates; it does not mandate keeping other criminal proceedings in abeyance until the Gangsters Act trial concludes.
Relevant Para
19) 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.
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 866
Decided on: 17 August 2026
Case Title: Keshvendra Singh v. Shankar Singh And Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: K. V. Viswanathan J.; Arun Palli J.