Prosecution produces ninth witness in SP MLA arson case

Kanpur: Prosecution on Wednesday produced its ninth witness in an arson case in which Samajwadi Party MLA Irfan Solanki and others are accused.
Witness Aqil Ahmad Khan besides his examination-in-chief chief was asked a few questions by the defence lawyer too and thereafter the proceedings were adjourned and the court fixed Thursday for the remaining part of cross examination. It is expected that he would join in the court proceedings through video conferencing from Maharajganj jail.
The SP MLA, his brother and about half- a-dozen persons are accused in the arson case which was registered by the police on the complaint of Nazir Fatima of Jajmau. In her FI R, she had alleged that Irfan Solanki, his brother Rizwan Solanki and others had set her hut on fire on November 7, 2022 with an intention to grab her plot where she resides. The bail applications of Irfan Solanki and others had been dismissed. The court had framed charges against Irfan Solanki, Rizwan Solanki, Shaukat, Mohd Sharif and Israel Atawala on March 7 this year.
The MLA was brought from Maharajganj police station and was produced before the MP/MLA session court on Wednesday. In fact the prosecution had summoned its witnesses Baby Naaz and Sajid, both children of complainant Nazir Fatima and since both could not come to the court the prosecution then produced Aqil Ahmad Khan.
The defence counsel objected that the witness was brought without issuing any summon, therefore, his evidence should not be put on record. But the court permitted and Aqil’s examination-in- chief was recorded. The prosecution thereafter cross examined him, and his examination will continue on Thursday too.
ADGC Bhaskar Mishra and Prachi Srivastava, counsel of complainant Nazir Fatima informed that 8 witnesses have so far adduced their evidence.
Karim Ahmad, advocate counsel for Irfan Solanki, during the hearing informed that this court had already ordered officials of Maharajganj jail to provide facilities to which the MLA was entitled but the jail authorities were not providing any facilities and were thus not complying with the court order. He had already moved an application to this effect.