Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Ex-AAP MLA Naresh Balyan in Organized Crime Case

Court Decision on Bail Plea

New Delhi, Aug 3: The bail application of former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Naresh Balyan was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Monday in connection with a case filed under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).

A single-judge bench led by Justice Manoj Jain, who had reserved the decision last week, denied bail to the former legislator from Uttam Nagar.

Balyan is contesting the trial court's ruling that denied him bail in the organized crime case initiated by the Delhi Police Crime Branch under MCOCA.

He was re-arrested by the Crime Branch in December 2024, shortly after he was granted bail in an extortion case. Following his release by the Rouse Avenue Court, police took him into custody on the court premises regarding the organized crime allegations.

Initially detained on November 30, 2024, Balyan's arrest followed the emergence of audio recordings purportedly featuring him in discussions with gangster Kapil Sangwan, also known as Nandu. These recordings allegedly indicated plans to intimidate and extort funds from builders and other individuals in Delhi.

The Delhi Police claims that Balyan is part of a broader criminal organization operating in Delhi and nearby regions, allegedly involved in serious crimes like extortion and arms trafficking.

The charge sheet characterizes this network as a well-organized group engaged in illegal activities for profit.

Four individuals, including Vijay alias Kalu, Sahil alias Poli, Balyan, and Jyoti Prakash alias Baba, have been named in a supplementary charge sheet submitted by the police.

Previously, the Delhi Police opposed Balyan's bail request, arguing that the investigation was at a critical juncture and his release could obstruct the inquiry. However, Balyan has maintained that the charges are politically motivated and part of a larger conspiracy against him.

In a related extortion case stemming from an FIR at Mohan Garden police station, a Delhi court discharged Balyan of charges under Sections 387, 120B, and 201 of the IPC on July 31, stating that the prosecution failed to meet the necessary foundational threshold for framing charges.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Paras Dalal noted that the prosecution could not establish any significant suspicion against Balyan, emphasizing that there was "not a single piece of evidence" to demonstrate any prior agreement between him and the fugitive gangster Kapil Sangwan.

The trial court criticized the police investigation for its "lost time," unexplained delays, and excessive reliance on secondary electronic evidence.

It pointed out that the original devices containing the alleged audio recordings were never confiscated, and no attempts were made to trace the source of the recordings shared on Facebook, indicating that the investigation was based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence.

"There is no evidence that both accused persons ever communicated before the complainant received threatening messages or audio recordings," the court stated, concluding that the prosecution had not established the necessary foundational facts to proceed against Balyan for criminal conspiracy or evidence tampering.

Concluding that "the prosecution cannot cast grave suspicion upon the accused no.2 sufficient to frame charges," the Rouse Avenue Court discharged Balyan from all charges related to the extortion case.