Observing that a right to a speedy trial is not only the prerogative of the accused, but is also a valuable right of the victim, the Supreme Court on Monday (August 17) set aside the Allahabad High Court's order which had kept a murder trial against an accused in abeyance merely because a proceeding under the UP Gangsters Act was pending against him.

Allowing the complainant's appeal, a bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli rejected the Respondent-accused's argument about the precedence of proceedings pending under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“Gangsters Act”) over other regular criminal proceedings. The Court said that if an argument of the accused is accepted, then it would severely prejudice the right to speedy trial of the victim.

The accused had relied on Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, which gives precedence to cases pending under the Gangsters Act over regular criminal cases. He argued that since a case under the Gangsters Act was pending against him, until its adjudication, a regular criminal trial in a murder case cannot be proceeded with and has to be kept in abeyance.

Rejecting this argument, the judgment authored by Justice Viswanathan observed:

“…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. If the interpretation canvassed by the respondent-accused is accepted, it will render Section 12 of the Gangsters Act ultra vires Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It will also give a handle to the accused to delay all other cases under the pretext that the proceedings are pending under the Gangsters Act…This Court cannot countenance any such interpretation which will make a mockery of the judicial process.”

Section 12 of Gangsters Act Grants Priority Not Freezes Other Proceedings

According to the Court, the true “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.”

The Court found the trial court's reliance on Dharmendra Kirthal vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (2013) 8 SCC 368 to be correct, where it was observed that “the legislature while enacting Section 12 did not intend to delay the trial proceedings for the cases under the Gangsters Act and further considering the progress that the trial has achieved for the offences under the IPC, held that Section 12 of the Gangsters Act would have no application and there was no justification for keeping the sessions trial in abeyance.”

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed. The High Court's decision to stall the murder trial was set aside. Since the Sessions trial proceeded by way of an earlier interim order of the Court, resulting in the Respondent's conviction, the Sessions Court's decision of conviction attained finality.

Cause Title: Keshvendra Singh Versus Shankar Singh And Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 815

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aviral Kashyap, AOR Mr. Amit Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Prabhsharan Singh Mohi, Adv. Mr. Vikram Singh Srivastava, Adv.

For Respondent(s) No.1: Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR

For Respondent No.2: Mr. Arup Banerjee, AOR Mr. Shiv Pratap Singh., Adv. Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Adv. Mrs. Noopur Dubey, Adv. Mr. R.K.Srivastava, Adv.