In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 only resolves a clash of dates between parallel trials and cannot be invoked to keep an otherwise advanced sessions trial in abeyance merely because a Gangsters Act case is pending against the same accused. The Court observed that the object of Section 12 of the UP Gangsters Act is to ensure that trials under the Act are not hampered by a clash of dates with other proceedings against the same accused, and not to freeze or supersede parallel trials.
Reaffirming the ratio in Dharmendra Kirthal vs. State of U.P. [(2013) 8 SCC 368], the Apex Court observed that the legislative emphasis is on speedy trial and not on denial of trial, and that Section 12 must be read harmoniously with Section 346 BNSS / Section 309 CrPC. The Court further held that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 is not the exclusive prerogative of the accused and equally belongs to the victim, and that an interpretation which permits accused persons to stall parallel trials under the guise of pending Gangsters Act proceedings would be constitutionally suspect.
Applying this to the facts, the Court found that the sessions trial for murder under Section 302 IPC was at the stage of Section 313 CrPC with prosecution evidence complete, while the Gangsters Act trial had not even commenced, leaving no clash of dates to be resolved.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli observed that the High Court had clearly erred in reversing the well-considered order of the trial Judge. The Bench noted that the High Court itself had noticed the pronouncement in Dharmendra Kirthal vs. State of U.P. [(2013) 8 SCC 368], and had even observed that it was never the intention of the legislature when enacting the Gangsters Act to stop proceedings in cases other than those under the Gangsters Act, and that Section 12 was intended only to provide a solution when there was a clash of dates. Despite recording these findings, the High Court proceeded to pass a contradictory conclusion directing the sessions trial to be kept in abeyance.
The Court further observed that when the application was filed by the accused on 18 January 2025, the prosecution evidence in Session Trial had already been completed and statements under Section 313 CrPC were scheduled to be recorded, whereas under the Gangsters Act only the charge sheet had been submitted and the trial had not even commenced. There was, therefore, no question of any clash of dates warranting the application of Section 12 of the Gangsters Act.
The Court also emphasised that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial not only to the accused but equally to the victim, and any inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial has a deleterious effect on society. If the interpretation canvassed by the accused were accepted, it would render Section 12 of the Gangsters Act ultra vires Article 21 and would give a handle to accused persons to delay all other cases under the pretext of pending Gangsters Act proceedings, leading to tremendous injustice as preservation of evidence would become a challenge and witnesses would become less forthcoming with the passage of time.
Briefly, the appellant, who is the brother of the deceased Raghvendra Singh, lodged an FIR on 30 September 2023 at Police Station Talbehat, District Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh, against nine accused persons alleging that his brother was mercilessly assaulted and beaten to death with lathis, stones and metal rods. After investigation, charge sheets were filed against seven accused persons under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the case was committed to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lalitpur. Subsequently, a Gang Chart was prepared and on 1 January 2024, a separate FIR was lodged under Section 2(b)(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (the Gangsters Act) against the same accused persons.
On 18 January 2025, the seven accused filed an application before the Sessions Judge praying that the proceedings in Session Trial be kept in abeyance on the ground that the trial under the Gangsters Act should have precedence. The Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed this application, observing that the prosecution had already completed its evidence and statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were scheduled to be recorded, whereas under the Gangsters Act only the charge sheet had been submitted and the trial was yet to begin. The High Court of Allahabad allowed the revision and directed that Session Trial be kept in abeyance while the Special Judge was directed to expedite the Gangsters Session Trial. The Supreme Court, on 13 April 2026, stayed the High Court’s order and directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within two months. The Sessions Court has since concluded the trial and convicted all the accused under Section 302 IPC along with other sections.
