The Allahabad High Court has observed that a trial court can consider a second application to add a more serious charge, such as attempt to murder, even after an earlier plea for the same relief was rejected. The power remains available until the trial ends in a judgment. Justice Saurabh Srivastava dismissing Raghvendra Pratap Singh’s challenge to a Basti court order that added Section 307 IPC to the case.
Background
The case began with an FIR lodged on May 19, 2021 at Police Station Gaur by Bablu. He alleged that on May 16, 2021, men with whom he had a political rivalry abused and beat him, and that Singh allegedly fired a gun at him.
Five accused, including Singh, were summoned under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, without Section 307. Bablu then applied under Section 216 CrPC, which lets a court alter or add charges before judgment. The trial court rejected that first application in September 2022 as premature. After the doctor and injured witnesses were examined, he filed a second plea in March 2023, which the trial court allowed on June 4, 2026.
Singh approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent powers. He called the order arbitrary and argued that a similar plea had already been rejected. The State and the complainant relied on the doctor’s evidence of a firearm injury.
Examining the record, the Court said:
“It is evident from the above-mentioned section that the same gives ample powers to the Court to alter or amend the charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. The question, which needs for consideration in the present case, is whether there is evidence to support the charge under Section 307 IPC. If the evidence of the P.W.2/doctor is read, who examined the P.W.1/injured/informant, it specifically stated that injury no.1 of injured/informant/P.W.1 is caused by fire arm and moreover, P.W.1 has already stated before learned trial court concerned that he had received a fire arm injury. Thus, there is prima facie evidence available to support the charge, which is the requirement under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for addition/alteration of the charge.”
On whether a second application is maintainable, it added:
“The core issue in the instant matter is that whether the second application under section 216 Cr.P.C. is maintainable or not once the first one has already been rejected at the initial stage? The same shall be dependent upon the stage since the power vests with the learned court concerned while considering the prayer under section 216 Cr.P.C. is available before pronouncement of judgement of concerned trial.”
Finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s order, the High Court dismissed the application.
Case Details
Case Title: Raghvendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 27503 of 2026
Judge: Justice Saurabh Srivastava
Decision Date: October 26, 2026
