Section 12 Gangsters Act: Supreme Court Says Other Criminal Cases Cannot Be Put on Hold

The Supreme Court has held that Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 does not mean that other proceedings against an accused must be kept on hold until proceedings under the special law are concluded.

A Bench of Justices K V Vishwanathan and Arun Palli said the purpose of Section 12 is only to provide that, in case of a clash of dates, proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act would get priority.

What does Section 12 of the Gangsters Act provide?

Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 states that trials conducted by a Special Court under this Act have precedence over other criminal cases against the accused in regular courts.

The Bench explained that Section 12 does not require other trials involving the same accused to be suspended merely because proceedings under the Gangsters Act are pending.

"Further, one cannot be oblivious of the mandate of Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which is a reincarnation of Section 309 of the Code," the Bench said.

Court pointed out that Section 346 of the BNSS [formerly Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)] requires criminal proceedings to continue on a day-to-day basis until all witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds that an adjournment beyond the following day is necessary for reasons to be recorded.

Section 346 of the BNSS governs the power of a court to postpone or adjourn proceedings in every inquiry or trial to ensure speedy justice and prevent unnecessary delays.

The Supreme Court also noted that stringent conditions have been imposed for adjournment of proceedings.

"Harmoniously reading Section 12 of the Gangsters Act with Section 346 of the BNSS (Section 309 of the Code), the conclusion is irresistible that all that Section 12 of the Gangsters Act contemplates is that, in the event of a clash of dates, the proceedings under the Gangsters Act would be given preference," the Bench said.

Court also referred to Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial.

It observed that the right to speedy trial is not only the prerogative of the accused but is also a valuable right of the victim. Any inordinate delay in concluding a trial could have a deleterious effect on society in general, the Bench said.

Court set aside high court order keeping murder trial in abeyance

The Apex Court was hearing an appeal filed by Keshvendra Singh against an August 25, 2025 order of the Allahabad High Court. The high court had directed that the sessions trial in a murder case be kept in abeyance and that proceedings under the Gangsters Act against the same set of accused be expedited.

The appellant's counsel submitted that Section 12 only gives priority to the Gangsters Act case in the event of a clash of dates.

The de facto complainant also submitted that when the application was filed seeking to keep the murder trial in abeyance, only a chargesheet had been submitted in the Gangsters Act case and its trial had not even begun. In the murder case, on the other hand, the prosecution had already completed its evidence and statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were scheduled to be recorded.

Section 313 of the CrPC (now Section 351 of the BNSS) allows the judge or magistrate to question the accused person directly.

Counsel for the respondent-accused defended the high court's order.

The Supreme Court, however, said accepting the interpretation advanced on behalf of the respondent-accused would render Section 12 of the Gangsters Act ultra vires Article 21 of the Constitution.

It further observed that such an interpretation would give accused persons a "handle" to delay all other cases on the ground that proceedings under the Gangsters Act were pending.

"Tremendous injustice will result as with every day’s delay, preservation of evidence will become a challenge. Witnesses will be that much less forthcoming and even if they are, with passage of time, human memory would have begun to fade. This Court cannot countenance any such interpretation which will make a mockery of the judicial process," the Bench said.

Murder trial was already at an advanced stage

Court noted that the trial judge had, on March 3, 2025, rightly rejected the accused's application seeking to keep the murder trial in abeyance.

Charges had been framed in the murder case on February 26, 2024. By January 8, 2025, the prosecution had completed its evidence and the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were scheduled to be recorded.

It was at this stage, on January 18, 2025, that the accused sought to keep the trial in abeyance until the conclusion of the Gangsters Act trial.

The trial judge had rightly noted that when the application was rejected, the trial under the Gangsters Act was yet to begin as the chargesheet had only recently been submitted.

Therefore, there was no clash of dates warranting the application of Section 12 of the Gangsters Act, the Supreme Court said.

"In our considered view, the high court clearly erred in reversing this order of the trial judge," the Bench held.

The Supreme Court also noted that the high court itself had observed that it was never the legislative intention behind the Gangsters Act to stop proceedings in cases other than those under the Gangsters Act. It had further held that Section 12 was intended only to provide a solution in case of a clash of dates.

However, despite these observations, the high court had directed that the murder trial be kept in abeyance.

"The order of the high court is completely untenable," the Supreme Court said while setting aside the order.

Notably, the top court also recorded that pursuant to its interim order dated April 13, 2026, the murder trial had already concluded and the accused had been convicted.

Case Title: Keshvendra Singh Vs Shankar Singh & Anr

Bench: Justices K V Vishwanathan and Arun Palli

Date of Judgment: August 17, 2026