New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday denied bail to former Aam Aadmi Party MLA Naresh Balyan in a case registered under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), dealing a setback to the politician despite his recent discharge in a related extortion case. Justice Manoj Jain pronounced the verdict in open court, while the detailed order is yet to be released.
The decision comes only days after a Delhi magistrate court discharged Balyan in a 2023 extortion case, citing significant shortcomings in the police investigation. However, the High Court’s refusal to grant bail pertains specifically to the MCOCA proceedings, which allege Balyan’s involvement in organised crime.
The case has its origins in a complaint filed by businessman Gurcharan, a resident of Mohan Garden in West Delhi. According to the complaint, he received an extortion call in July 2023 from alleged gangster Kapil Sangwan, who demanded Rs 1 crore. Investigators later suspected Balyan’s involvement after an alleged phone conversation between him and Sangwan surfaced on a Hindi news channel in 2024.
Balyan was first arrested on November 30, 2024, in connection with the extortion case but secured bail on the same day. Days later, on December 4, 2024, he was arrested again after police invoked the stringent provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. A trial court subsequently rejected his bail plea on January 15, 2025.
According to the Delhi Police, MCOCA was invoked against Sangwan in connection with the extortion case, and Balyan allegedly acted as a facilitator in settling the extortion demand. Investigators have also claimed to possess statements from two witnesses supporting the allegations against the former legislator.
Meanwhile, the order discharging Balyan in the extortion case raised questions over the quality of the investigation. In his July 31 order, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Paras Dalal observed that the prosecution had relied heavily on secondary evidence without adequately explaining why primary evidence had not been seized or produced.
The court questioned why the complainant’s mobile phone was not seized and subjected to forensic analysis when it was reportedly available. It also noted that investigators relied on a pen drive containing secondary evidence without comparing it to the alleged original recordings stored on the mobile device.
While the discharge in the extortion case offered relief to Balyan, the Delhi High Court’s latest order means he will continue to remain in custody in connection with the separate MCOCA proceedings. The detailed reasoning behind the High Court’s decision is expected to become clear once the full order is made public.
