# Shankar Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 913
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1669 of 2025
- **Bench:** Nalin Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shankar-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53828
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Whether, in view of Section 12 of the U.P.
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, the Sessions Trial
arising out of the IPC case was liable to be
kept in abeyance when a Special Sessions
Trial under the Gangsters Act arising out
of the same incident was pending against
the same accused.

Headnotes
U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1986
-
s.12
-
Criminal Trial - Precedence of trial -
Special Court - Meaning of "kept in
abeyance" - Concurrent proceedings -
Mandatory nature - Error of Sessions
Court - Interference in revision-revision
allowed
914 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
HELD:
Section 12 of the Gangsters Act mandates that
the trial of an offence by a Special Court under
the Act shall have precedence over the trial
of any other case against the accused pending
before any other court (not being a Special
Court).
The
expression
"shall
remain
in
abeyance" does not mean permanent stoppage
of the other proceedings but obligates the court
to defer and avoid clash of proceedings,
giving priority to the Gangsters Act trial. [Paras
9-11, 15]

The object of Section 12 is to ensure speedy
conclusion of trials under the Gangsters
Act and to prevent an accused from facing
simultaneous trials in different courts. The
provision is mandatory in nature, and the use of
the word "shall" casts a duty upon the trial court
to accord precedence to the Gangsters Act case.
[Paras 10, 15]

The view taken by the trial court that Section 12
does not confer precedence to the Gangsters
Act trial over the Sessions Trial under the IPC
was legally unsustainable and contrary to the
settled interpretation laid down by the Supreme
Court and this Court. [Paras 6, 16]

Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the
application under Section 12 of the Gangsters
Act was set aside; the Sessions Trial under the
IPC was directed to remain in abeyance, and the
Special Court was directed to expedite the
Gangsters Act trial. [Paras 16-18]

Revision allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Dharmendra Kirthal v. State of U.P., AIR
2013 SC 2569 - relied on; Rohit Singh v.
State of U.P., 2016 (95) ACC 350 (All) -
followed; Vipul @ Alok Singh and others v.
State of U.P., Application u/s 482 No.
23736 of 2023, decided on 12.07.2023 -
referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes
Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal Code,
1860

List of Keywords
Gangsters Act; Precedence of trial; Special
Court; Sessions Trial; Kept in abeyance;
Concurrent proceedings; Mandatory provision;
Speedy trial.

Case Arising From
Order
dated
03.03.2025
passed
by
the
Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special
Judge (D.A.A.), Lalitpur in Sessions Trial No.
0934 of 2023 (State of U.P. v. Pancham Singh
and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0342
of 2023, Police Station Talbehat, District
Lalitpur.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist: Sri Ajay Sengar, Sri Akshay
Raj Singh.
For the Respondent : Learned Government
Advocate.

## Text

8 All. Shankar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
913
entire record including the impugned order
carefully.

7. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and keeping in
view the nature of the offence, evidence,
complicity of the accused, role assigned to
the present appellant and the nature of
injury, the Court is of the opinion that the
appellant has made out a case for bail. The
Court below erred in rejecting the bail
application of the appellant. The impugned
order suffers from infirmity and illegality
and the same is liable to be set-aside and
the appeal is liable to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed
and the impugned order rejecting the bail
application of the appellant is hereby setaside.

9. Let the appellant- Abdul Raseed,
involved in aforesaid case crime number be
released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to following conditions.
Further, before issuing the release order,
the sureties be verified.

(i) The appellant will not tamper
with the evidence during the trial.

(ii)
The
appellant
will
not
pressurize/
intimidate
the
prosecution
witness.

(iii) The appellant will appear
before the trial court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The appellant shall not
commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which he is suspected.

(v) The appellant shall not
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.

10. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation
application before this Court.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 913
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1669 of 2025

Shankar Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ajay Sengar, Akshay Raj Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether, in view of Section 12 of the U.P.
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, the Sessions Trial
arising out of the IPC case was liable to be
kept in abeyance when a Special Sessions
Trial under the Gangsters Act arising out
of the same incident was pending against
the same accused.

Headnotes
U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1986
-
s.12
-
Criminal Trial - Precedence of trial -
Special Court - Meaning of "kept in
abeyance" - Concurrent proceedings -
Mandatory nature - Error of Sessions
Court - Interference in revision-revision
allowed
914 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
HELD:
Section 12 of the Gangsters Act mandates that
the trial of an offence by a Special Court under
the Act shall have precedence over the trial
of any other case against the accused pending
before any other court (not being a Special
Court).
The
expression
"shall
remain
in
abeyance" does not mean permanent stoppage
of the other proceedings but obligates the court
to defer and avoid clash of proceedings,
giving priority to the Gangsters Act trial. [Paras
9-11, 15]

The object of Section 12 is to ensure speedy
conclusion of trials under the Gangsters
Act and to prevent an accused from facing
simultaneous trials in different courts. The
provision is mandatory in nature, and the use of
the word "shall" casts a duty upon the trial court
to accord precedence to the Gangsters Act case.
[Paras 10, 15]

The view taken by the trial court that Section 12
does not confer precedence to the Gangsters
Act trial over the Sessions Trial under the IPC
was legally unsustainable and contrary to the
settled interpretation laid down by the Supreme
Court and this Court. [Paras 6, 16]

Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the
application under Section 12 of the Gangsters
Act was set aside; the Sessions Trial under the
IPC was directed to remain in abeyance, and the
Special Court was directed to expedite the
Gangsters Act trial. [Paras 16-18]

Revision allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Dharmendra Kirthal v. State of U.P., AIR
2013 SC 2569 - relied on; Rohit Singh v.
State of U.P., 2016 (95) ACC 350 (All) -
followed; Vipul @ Alok Singh and others v.
State of U.P., Application u/s 482 No.
23736 of 2023, decided on 12.07.2023 -
referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes
Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal Code,
1860

List of Keywords
Gangsters Act; Precedence of trial; Special
Court; Sessions Trial; Kept in abeyance;
Concurrent proceedings; Mandatory provision;
Speedy trial.

Case Arising From
Order
dated
03.03.2025
passed
by
the
Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special
Judge (D.A.A.), Lalitpur in Sessions Trial No.
0934 of 2023 (State of U.P. v. Pancham Singh
and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0342
of 2023, Police Station Talbehat, District
Lalitpur.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist: Sri Ajay Sengar, Sri Akshay
Raj Singh.
For the Respondent : Learned Government
Advocate.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Nalin Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned
counsel for the revisionist and learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the
material available on record.

2. Since the case before the trial court
is a State case, there is no need to issue
notice to opposite party no.2 - the
informant.

3. This revision is directed against the
order dated 03.03.2025 passed by learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge /
Special
Judge
(D.A.A.),
Lalitpur
in
Sessions Trial No.0934 of 2023 (State of
U.P. Vs. Pancham Singh and others) arising
out of Case Crime No.0342 of 2023 under
Sections 147, 302/149, 323/149, 427, 504,
506 IPC, Police Station Talbehat, District
Lalitpur whereby the Application 70C-2
filed by the revisionist under Section 12 of
the U.P. Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred
to as Gangster Act) was rejected.
8 All. Shankar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
915

4. In the present matter, there are two
trials pending in respect of same incident.
First is registered as Sessions Trial
No.0934 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs.
Pancham Singh and others) arising out of
Case Crime No.0342 of 2023 under
Sections 147, 302/149, 323/149, 427, 504,
506 IPC, Police Station Talbehat, District
Lalitpur which is going on before the Court
of the learned Sessions Judge, Lalitpur and
in the second one i.e. Special Sessions Trial
No.01 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime
No.0001 of 2024 under Section 2 (b) (i) of
the U.P. Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station
Talbehat, District Lalitpur, wherein chargesheet has been submitted, the trial has yet
to begin.

5. Application 70C-2 moved by the
accused persons in Sessions Trial No.0934
of 2023 to keep the proceedings of the said
Sessions Trial in abeyance on the ground
that proceedings under the Gangster case
against the same accused persons are going
on in the Special Court following the
mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the
Gangster Act but the same was disallowed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge /
Special Judge (D.A.A.), Lalitpur vide order
dated 03.03.2025.

6. The impugned order was passed by
the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the
ground that there is no provision under
Section 12 of the Gangsters Act that the
trial of any offence under the Act triable by
a Special Court shall have precedence over
any other case against the accused in any
other Court. There is no justification for
providing preference to the Gangster case
upon the other Session Trial. Therefore the
provisions of Section 12 of the Gangsters
Act are not applicable in this case.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submitted that the learned trial court has
not appreciated the submissions advanced
on behalf of the accused - revisionist in
right perspective and has illegally passed
the
impugned
order
rejecting
the
application 70C-2 moved by the accused -
revisionist. It is further submitted that
according to Section 12 of the Gangsters
Act, proceedings under the said Act shall
take priority over any other proceedings in
the cases listed in the gang chart. In support
of his contention the learned counsel for the
revisionist has placed reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Dharmendra Kirthal Vs. State
of U.P. and another, AIR 2013 Supreme
Court 2569.

8. On the other hand, learned A.G.A.
opposed the revision and vehemently
submitted
that
the
court
concerned
committed no mistake in passing the
impugned order.

9. Section 12 of the Gangsters Act -
Provisions and Object

Before proceeding further, it
would be desirable to quote the provisions
of Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters
And
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, which may be read
as follows :-

"12. Trial by Special Court to
have precedence -

The trial under this Act of any
offence by Special Court shall have
precedence over the trial of any other case
against the accused in any other court (not
being a Special Court) and shall be
concluded in preference to the trial of such
other case and accordingly the trial of such
other case shall remain in abeyance."
916 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. From the perusal of the aforesaid
legal provision it is manifestly clear that if
one case under the Gangsters Act is going
on, the precedence shall be given to the
said case which should be decided first in
comparison to the other cases pending
against the accused persons.

11. The object behind the said
distinguished provision was elaborated by
the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Rohit
Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2016 (95) ACC
350 (ALL) wherein it was explained that
intention of legislature behind enacting
Section 12 is that case under the Gangsters
Act should not be delayed. Other cases can
go on but clash of dates has to be avoided
and for this purpose 'kept in abeyance'
would mean that if dates are common then
case under the Gangsters Act will get
precedence.

12. Constitutional Validity - The
object and constitutional validity of the
legal
provision
under
reference
was
assailed and put under challenge before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharmendra
Kirthal (supra) case on the grounds that it
will delay other criminal cases in which
accused was facing trial in other courts.
Delay will violate the right of speedy trial
and secondly if the accused was in jail, he
will have to languish in custody. It is in the
nature of Preventive detention. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court replied the contentions by
holding that by virtue of Section 12
accused does not face trial in two cases
simultaneously and a case before the
Special Court does not linger owing to
clash of dates in trial. In other cases
accused can seek bail under Criminal
Procedure Code and be at liberty.

13. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court
while dealing with the various aspects of
the controversy repelled all the contentions
and upheld the validity of the provisions
contained under section 12. The significant
part of the said decision is found in
Paragraph 32 of the judgment quoted above
which is extracted as hereinbelow -

"32. The present provision is to
be tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid
constitutional principle. The provision
clearly mandates that the trial under this
Act of any offence by the Special Court
shall have precedence and shall be
concluded in preference to the trial in such
other courts to achieve the said purpose.
The legislature thought it appropriate to
provide that the trial of such other case
shall remain in abeyance. It is apt to note
here that "any other case" against the
accused in "any other court" does not
include the Special Court. The emphasis is
on speedy trial and not denial of it. The
legislature
has
incorporated
such
a
provision so that an accused does not face
trial in two cases simultaneously and a
case before the Special Court does not
linger owing to clash of dates in trial. It is
also worthy to note that the Special Court
has been conferred jurisdiction under subsection (1) of Section 8 of the Act to try any
other offences with which the accused may,
under any other law for the time being in
force, have been charged and proceeded at
the same trial."

14. This Court in the case of Vipul @
Alok Singh and 2 others Vs. State of U.P.
and another vide order dated 12.7.2023
passed in Application u/s 482 No. - 23736
of 2023 observed as under :

"It is clear that intention of
legislature behind enacting the Section 12
of Gangsters Act is that the case under the
Gangsters Act should not be delayed and
8 All. Mrs. Meghna Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr.
917
other case can also go on but clash of dates
should be avoided and for this purpose,
'kept in abeyance' would mean, if dates in
both the cases are common, then the case
under
the
Gangsters
Act
will
get
precedence."

15. Hence, it is now explicitly clear
that the intention of the legislature is to
provide precedence to the cases under the
Gangsters Act in comparison to any other
case pending against the same accused in
any other Court. It never means that the
legislature intended to stop the proceedings
of the said other case completely but the
legislature intended that in case of two
legal proceedings pending in respect of the
same accused, it shall not clash with each
other. Since the case under the Gangsters
Act is a special trial for the specially
legislated Act to deal with the matters of
Gangsters, it is to be given priority in
comparison to other cases. The use of word
'Shall' in Section 12 of the Gangsters Act
casts a duty upon the trial court itself to
always pay attention to the situation that
being a special enactment the conclusive
end of the said Act be always preferable
against the trial of other cases related to the
same accused in any other Court. It is
significant to note here that the legislature
intended to certify the category of the
Gangsters Act as a Special Act and due to
this reason the Gangsters Act itself clarifies
that the cases to which the Gangsters Act
shall be given preference are required to be
normal trial and it should not be pending
before any Special Court, as reveals by
sifting the provisions of Section 12 of the
Act meaning thereby that the legislature
recognized the special category of cases
pending in a Special Court by using the
words 'not being a Special Court'. Hence,
the preferential part of Section 12 of the
Act takes care of all the Special Courts as
well as the Gangsters Act.

16. Having considered the rival
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and taking into consideration the
provisions of Section 12 of the Gangsters
Act and the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court as well as by this Court, the Court is
of the view that the impugned order is not
sustainable in the eye of law and the same
is liable to be set-aside.

17. Accordingly the impugned order
dated 03.03.2025 is set-aside. The Sessions
Trial No.0934 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs.
Pancham Singh and others) which is
running concurrently before the Court of
Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, shall be kept in
abeyance and the learned Special Judge is
directed to expedite the proceedings of
Gangster Sessions Trial No.01 of 2024 to
satisfy the intent of mandatory provisions
contained in Section 12 of the Gangsters
Act.

18. With the above observations, the
revision stands allowed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 917
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ A No. 4063 of 2025

Mrs. Meghna Sanjeev Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ravindra Narayan Singh, Vishal Kashyap