The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a plea filed by Samajwadi Party MLA Irfan Solanki, challenging order of Allahabad High Court order rejecting his bail plea in connection with a case of him allegedly boarding a flight on a forged Aadhaar card.
The bench comprising of justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar passed the order. The bench declined to give relief to Solanki at this stage.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for Uttar Pradesh Government, opposed plea of Solanki.
Solanki, who was represented by R Basant and Advocate on Record Pallavi Sharma, challenged the order of Allahabad High Court dated February 17, this year.
However, Allahabad High Court dismissed Solanki’s bail application.
In his plea, Solanki, claimed that being a political figure from the minority community in Uttar Pradesh, he is at the receiving end of recurring malicious prosecutions and the present FIR is also borne out of the political vendetta.
The petitioner stated in his plea, “It is respectfully submitted that 5 of such false FIRs against the Petitioner have culminated in favourable closure reports and in 4 of such FIRS the Petitioner is on bail and has not breached any condition thereof till date and in the remaining 5 FIRs of the year 2022, the investigation is yet not complete despite the expiry of significant time.”
Solanki claimed that he had been framed in a false case where it has been alleged that he forged the Aadhar Card of a co-accused and used the same to travel from New Delhi to Mumbai through an Indigo Flight on November 11, 2022, in order to evade arrest in connection with another FIR against him.
Solanki claimed that there was no material to show that he forged the recovered Aadhar card, or, he was travelling on a forged Aadhar Card.
The MLA stated in his plea, “Despite, the aforesaid position, the high court dismissed the prayer for bail on the ground that he, being a member of the Legislative Assembly, the petitioner forged an Aadhar Card and used the same for travelling to Mumbai.”
Furthermore, he submitted that the finding of the high court is a reiteration of the allegation in the FIR and the chargesheet.
“The same is also not final in nature and pre-mature as no conclusive guilt can be imputed on the Petitioner at the present stage where the trial is yet to commence,” the petitioner stated, claiming that of the 9 accused named in the FIR, 2 were dropped as accused in the chargesheet and the remaining 6 co-accused were granted bail by the high court.
