Gangsters Act trial gets priority only when dates clash; other criminal trials cannot be kept in abeyance: Supreme Court

The appellant, brother of the deceased Raghvendra Singh, lodged an FIR against nine accused persons for offences including murder under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302 and 427 IPC.

Chargesheets were filed against seven accused, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court as Sessions Trial No. 934 of 2023.

Subsequently, a Gang Chart was prepared alleging that the offence had been committed by a gang, leading to registration of proceedings under Section 2(b)(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“Gangsters Act”) as Gangster Sessions Trial No. 1 of 2024.

When the prosecution in the murder trial had substantially completed its evidence and the accused’s statements under Section 313 CrPC were scheduled, the accused sought to keep the murder trial in abeyance until conclusion of the Gangsters Act trial.

The Sessions Court rejected the application, holding that Section 12 of the Gangsters Act was intended to address a clash of dates and did not require suspension of the other trial.

The Allahabad High Court reversed that order and directed that the murder trial remain in abeyance while the Gangsters Act trial was expedited.

During the appeal, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s order and directed completion of the murder trial; the Sessions Court thereafter concluded the trial and convicted all accused under Section 302 IPC, among other provisions.

Whether Section 12 of the Gangsters Act requires a criminal trial pending before an ordinary Sessions Court to be kept in abeyance until conclusion of the trial under the Gangsters Act.

Whether Section 12 merely gives precedence to the Gangsters Act trial in the event of a clash of hearing dates, without freezing or indefinitely suspending other criminal proceedings.

Whether the High Court was justified in directing that Sessions Trial No. 934 of 2023 be kept in abeyance despite the advanced stage of that trial and the fact that the Gangsters Act trial had not commenced.

Section 12 of the Gangsters Act provides that a trial under the Act before a Special Court shall have precedence over any other case against the accused in any other court, and that such other case shall remain in abeyance.

In Dharmendra Kirthal v. State of U.P., (2013) 8 SCC 368, the Supreme Court interpreted this provision as ensuring priority for the Gangsters Act trial where simultaneous proceedings create a clash of dates; its object is speedy conclusion of the Special Court trial, not denial or indefinite postponement of other trials.

The Court also relied on Mobin Iftikhar Zaidi v. State of U.P., 2011 SCC OnLine All 4160, which held that Section 12 does not require all other trials to be stayed and must be harmoniously read with the day-to-day trial requirement under Section 309 CrPC.

Section 346 BNSS, which substantially reincarnates Section 309 CrPC, mandates day-to-day continuation of proceedings and restricts adjournments, particularly where witnesses are in attendance.

The Court further applied the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial under Article 21, recognising it as a right of both the accused and the victim, as explained in Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516, with reference to Mangal Singh v. Kishan Singh, (2009) 17 SCC 303.

The Court held that the High Court misconstrued Section 12 by treating it as an automatic command to suspend the murder trial until the Gangsters Act proceedings ended.

Read with Dharmendra Kirthal, Mobin Iftikhar Zaidi and Section 346 BNSS, Section 12 only gives priority to the Gangsters Act trial when the two proceedings are fixed on conflicting dates; it does not require the other case to be wholly halted.

On the facts, there was no clash of dates: the murder trial had reached the stage of recording statements under Section 313 CrPC after completion of the prosecution evidence, whereas the Gangsters Act trial had not even commenced and only a chargesheet had been filed.

Suspending the advanced murder trial would undermine the statutory and constitutional mandate of expeditious criminal adjudication and prejudice the victim, while enabling the accused to delay prosecution of the underlying offences under the guise of Section 12.

The High Court’s reasoning was internally contradictory because it acknowledged that Section 12 was not intended to stop other proceedings but nevertheless ordered the murder trial to remain in abeyance.

The High Court’s order dated 25.08.2025 was set aside as untenable, and the appeal was allowed.

Since Sessions Trial No. 934 of 2023 had already been concluded pursuant to the Supreme Court’s interim direction and the accused had been convicted, no further direction concerning its continuation was necessary.