Disqualified MLA Irfan Solanki Arson Case | Prosecution's Evidence Found Reliable In Trial: Allahabad HC Denies Stay On Conviction

The Court also observed that it has often been seen that a large number of persons with criminal antecedents or who are charged with heinous crimes stand for and are elected to Legislative Assemblies and Parliaments.

Solanki, his brother and two others were convicted and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment by a Special Court in Kanpur for setting fire to a woman's house in 2022. Due to this, Solanki was disqualified as a member of the UP-State Legislative Assembly.

A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I opined that Solanki, who has been charged with serious offences and has a long criminal history and whose bail plea had also been rejected by the HC and the Apex Court, was not entitled to the relief of stay of conviction.

It may be noted that Solanki had moved the HC seeking a stay on conviction and bail in the matter. The bench granted him bail, but his plea to stay conviction was rejected.

His counsel argued that Solanki has served as an MLA for as many as four times from the different constituencies of District- Kanpur Nagar and has a good reputation amongst the public at large.

On the other hand, the AGA strongly opposed the application, submitting that Solanki had been involved in serious offences, including arson, and had a long criminal record. It was also contended that suspending the conviction under Section 389(1) CrPC was not warranted, given the gravity of the offences and the appellants' criminal history.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Court observed that the trial court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, had convicted Solanki for the offences charged by holding that the evidence led by the prosecution was trustworthy and reliable.

The Court also noted that while it has the power to stay the conviction, such power must be exercised in exceptional circumstances, in a case where the Court is convinced that not staying the conviction would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences.

“It is germane to point out here that power to stay the execution of sentence and power to stay the conviction stand on different pedestal, for the stay of execution of sentence only prima facie case against the appellants is to be looked into, however, his conviction is not liable to be stayed on this ground alone,” the Court remarked.

Further, the Court also factored that merely pleading that Solanki, by his conviction, stands disqualified as per the Representation of People Act, 1951, was no ground to suspend the conviction.

Consequently, the plea to stay conviction was rejected.

Senior Advocate GS Chaturvedi and Advocates Imran Ullah and Upendra Upadhyay appeared for the appellant Solanki.

Case title - Irfan Solanki And Another vs. State of U.P.

Case citation:

Click here To Read/Download Order