For the best experience, open
on your mobile browser.

Allahabad High Court denies bail to Kanpur SP MLA Irfan Solanki

07:30 PM Feb 21, 2023 IST | India Legal
allahabad high court denies bail to kanpur sp mla irfan solanki

The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of Samajwadi Party MLA from Kanpur, Irfan Solanki.

A single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Irfan Solanki.

The bail application under Section 439 CrPC has been filed seeking bail in Case under Sections 212, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, Police Station Gwaltoli, District Kanpur Nagar.


The accused applicant is sitting Member of Legislative Assembly, Sheeshamau. The FIR in question came to be registered on a complaint of Ashok Kumar Dubey, In charge Inspector, Police Station Jajmau Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar. There is a case registered as FIR under Sections 436, 504, 147, 327, 427, 386, 504, 120B IPC against the accused applicant and other co-accused. The complainant was the Investigation Officer of the said offence. The accused applicant was also one of the accused in the said offence.

The competent court had issued non-bailable warrant against the accused applicant in the said case. To arrest the accused applicant in compliance of non bailable warrant, three police teams were constituted.


During investigation, it was found that the accused applicant had fled from Kanpur with aid and assistance of co-accused Noori Shaukat; Isharat (Mausa) of Asharaf Ali @ Shekhu Noori, the brother of the Noori Shaukat, Ammar Ilahi @ Ali, the driver of Noori Ali, Anwar Mansoori, the brother of the accused applicant; and Akhtar Mansoori.


It is further alleged that the accused applicant and other co-accused had manufactured documents such as Aadhaar Card to conceal the real identity of the accused applicant which was prepared with the assistance of co-accused Asharaf Ali.


The accused applicant on the basis of the forged documents, in order to conceal his identity, took journey from Kanpur to Delhi and Delhi to Mumbai. The journey from Delhi to Mumbai was performed by air route. The CCTV footage of Delhi and Mumbai airports were examined and it was found that the accused applicant had travelled from Delhi to Mumbai on the basis of the forged Aadhaar Card.

Ram Lal Mishra, the counsel for the accused applicant, submitted that the offence is basically related to the offence under Aadhaar Act, 2016.


It is urged that under the Aadhaar Act, before filing a complaint there has to be authorization from the competent authority but in the case no such sanction/permission was granted by the competent authority.

He also submitted that the maximum punishment under Section 37 of the Adhar Act, 2016 is of three years.

He submitted that no police report, no FIR could have been registered for offence committed for offence under the Aadhaar Act without prior permission of the competent authority and therefore, the proceedings against the accused applicant which are essentially for violation of Aadhaar Act, are not liable to be continued.

In view thereof, he submitted that the accused applicant who is in jail since 02.12.2022, may be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, Devesh Nath Tiwari, AGA, submitted that the accused applicant has a long criminal history of 16 cases and the detail of those criminal history is on record along with the counter-affidavit filed by the State.

He further submitted that the accused applicant might have committed an offence under Aadhaar Act but he has also committed offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for which the FIR was registered against him and other co- accused persons and chargesheet has also been filed.

He also submitted that for registering an FIR in respect of offence committed under LPC, no permission or sanction is required from the competent authority as is required under the Aadhaar Act.

The AGA said that the In-charge Inspector was fully competent to make complaint regarding offence committed by the accused applicant and on the basis of the complaint, the FIR can be registered.

He further said that the police has already investigated the offence and chargesheet has already been filed and the accused applicant may take this plea at an appropriate stage regarding prior permission for lodging a complaint against him in respect of the alleged offence of preparing the forged Aadhaar Card.

He also said that looking at the long criminal history of the accused applicant, this cannot be a case where the accused applicant should be enlarged on bail inasmuch as preparing the forged identity card is serious issue and such issue has to be dealt with sternly as several terrorist activities/attacks take place by terrorists who sneak into the country by using forged and fabricated Aadhaar Card which is a very important document of identity of citizens of this country and forging the said identity by the accused applicant and taking to and fro travel from Delhi to Mumbai on the basis of such forged identity card i.e Aadhaar Card, is a serious offence for which the FIR was registered and chargesheet has been filed.

He, therefore, submitted that looking at the gravity and nature of offence, evidence available against the accused applicant as well as the long history of criminal cases, this Court may not enlarge the accused applicant on bail.

‘The Court finds it strange that a Member of Legislative Assembly forges the national identity card i.e Aadhaar Card and takes travel on the basis of the forged identity card. Whether the accused applicant has committed an offence under Aadhaar Act or not would be decided at the relevant stage of trial but the Court is of the view that the accused applicant has committed offence under IPC for which no permission/sanction is required from the competent authority for lodging the FIR and undertaking the investigation. In view thereof, I do not find any substance in the submission of the counsel for the accused applicant that the case essentially pertains to violation of Aadhaar Act.

In view thereof, I do not find that it is a case where the accused applicant can be enlarged on bail at this stage,’ the Court observed while rejecting the application.

Tags :