Arson Case | Prosecution's Story Highly Doubtful: Allahabad HC In Disqualified MLA Irfan Solanki Bail Order

“Admittedly, the appellants are the residents of the vicinity where the incident is said to have taken place and merely because the appellants, along with other 50- 60 persons were present at the scene of incident, will not conclusively prove the circumstance that they were responsible for lighting the fire,” a bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I as it granted bail to him and suspended his sentence. (emphasis supplied)

It may be noted that 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.

In contrast, and interestingly, in a separate order dismissing his application for a stay on his conviction, the same bench observed on the same day that the trial court had, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, convicted Solanki for the offences charged by holding that the evidence led by the prosecution was trustworthy and reliable.

More details of the order here: Disqualified MLA Irfan Solanki Arson Case | Prosecution's Evidence Found Reliable In Trial: Allahabad HC Denies Stay On Conviction

In its bail order, the Court noted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove who, how, and when had allegedly lit the victim's house, which makes the prosecution's story highly doubtful.

“Even when we go through the evidence of several witnesses recorded during the course of trial, we find that there are serious embellishments and material omissions in their testimony, which goes to the root of the case and makes the prosecution story further doubtful,” the court observed.

The Court added that even the trial court had found no eyewitness account of the accused-appellants lighting fire and had observed that the case was based on circumstantial evidence.

Granting bail and suspending his sentence (not his conviction), the Court factored that the sentence is only for seven years, and the appellants (Solanki and his brother) have already undergone about two years of incarceration.

Before the Court, the counsel for Solanki submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove who, when, and how lit the fire to the hutment belonging to the first informant.

On the other hand, the AAG submitted that the evidence recorded during the trial cogently established the presence of the accused-appellants at the place of incident, and from the testimony of the witnesses, it was clear that the appellants were responsible for aggravating the fire, which was lit at the place of incident. Thus, it was prayed that he should not be granted bail.

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