Raghvendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27503 of 2026
Raghvendra Pratap Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, G.A.
Court No. - 76
A.F.R.
Reserved on 11.08.2026
Delivered on 26.10.2026

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Amit Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Pawan
Srivastava, learned AGA for State as well as Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. The instant application has been preferred for seeking quashing of
impugned order dated 04.06.2026 passed by learned Additional Session
Judge, Court No.2, Basti in Session Trial No.478 of 2022 (State vs. Sukhpal
Singh and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.96 of 2021, P.S. Gaur,
District- Basti, whereby application preferred under section 216 Cr.P.C. at
the behest of opposite party no.2 has been allowed and section 307 IPC has
been added.
3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR dated 19.05.2021 being Case Crime
No.96 of 2021 has been lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant
along with other accused persons in pursuance to sections 147, 148, 504,
506, 323, 307, 188 IPC along with section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
and section 51(b) Disaster Management Act, 2005 alleging that on
16.05.2021 at about 7 pm when he went to Sikari Chauraha for buying
vegetables, accused persons, who are having political rivalry with him,
started abusing and threatening him, upon which he objected and some
people from the place managed the situation and thereafter opposite party

NA528 No. 27503 of 2026
2
no.2 went to his house; when the opposite party no.2 reached near the house
of one Ram Naresh, the accused persons catched him and assaulted him with
laathi-danda and one accused Raghvendra (applicant herein) having fire arm
in his hand shot fire upon the opposite party no.2 and when one Manoj
Sharma tried to save the opposite party no.2, he was also being assaulted in
the alleged incident.
4. In respect to the above allegation made in the FIR, the concerned
Investigating Officer conducted detail investigation and submitted charge-
sheet against the accused persons, upon which cognizance of offence has
been taken up and five accused persons including the applicant herein have
been summoned vide order dated 02.08.2021 in pursuance to sections 147,
323, 504, 506 IPC.
5. Being aggrieved with the fact that charge under section 307 IPC has been
omitted against the accused persons, an application under section 216
Cr.P.C. dated 08.08.2022 has been preferred at the behest of opposite party
no.2 for alteration of charges and adding section 307 IPC, which was
rejected by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Basti vide order
dated 08.09.2022 by way of stating that the said application is premature.
Thereafter, charges have been framed against the accused on dated
22.09.2022 and trial has been commenced against the accused persons
including the applicant.
6. During trial, statements of P.W.1 Bablu, P.W.3 Manoj and P.W.2 the
doctor who treated the injured persons (P.W.1 and P.W.3) of the alleged
incident has been recorded and thereafter, on dated 16.03.2023 opposite
party no.2 again preferred an application under section 216 Cr.P.C. with the
same prayer and this time, learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.2,
Basti allowed the said application and added section 307 IPC vide order
dated 04.06.2026 by way of altering charges, which impugned the instant
application.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed
by learned trial court is illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind.
Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that earlier an application
u/s 216 Cr.P.C. preferred at the behest of opposite party no.2 with the same
prayer has already been rejected and thereafter the same was allowed in spite
of any new facts and material evidences available on record and even if

NA528 No. 27503 of 2026
3
whatsoever the material which is available with the learned trial court taken
into consideration, the same does not corroborate any offence in respect of
section 307 IPC against the applicant. On the aforesaid premise, the
impugned order is liable to be set-aside.
8. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party no.2
vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application and
rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the applicant and
supported the impugned order passed by learned trial court. They sought the
attention of Court over statement recorded by P.W.2/doctor who examined
the P.W.1/injured/informant, wherein in respect of injury no.1 of
injured/informant, namely, Bablu, he clearly stated that the said injury has
been sustained with fire arm. For ready reference, the said injury has been
mention as below :-
"Entry wound 1.0 X 0.9 cm with irregular and inverted margin
with bleeding over lateral aspect of left thigh which is 24 cm
above the left knee joint. Light blackening with through and
through."
9. For substantiating the above submissions and supporting the impugned
judgement passed by learned trial court, provisions contained under
Section
is produced herein below :-
216 Cr.P.C.
"216. Court may alter charge.-
1. Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment
is pronounced.
2. Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the
accused.
3. If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding
immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court to
prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of
the case the Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition
has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge
had been the original charge.
4. If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with
the trial is likely, in the opinion of the Court to prejudice the accused or
the prosecutor as aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new trial or
adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.

NA528 No. 27503 of 2026
4
5. If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the
prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be
proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction had been
already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which
the altered or added charge is founded".
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated
04.06.2026 does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, which requires
interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction vested under Section
528 BNSS.
13. Accordingly, the instant application is .
dismissed
October 26, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad