Delhi court rejects ex-AAP MLA Naresh Balyan’s bail: ‘Criminal nexus between politician and gangster most perilous threat to nation’

Balyan, the former Uttam Nagar MLA, was arrested on December 4 last year in a case lodged under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). At that time, the MLA was in police custody in connection with an extortion case lodged against him. The same evening he was granted bail in the extortion case, he was nabbed in the MCOCA case.

Police officers said Balyan’s name cropped up in a separate extortion case involving gangster Kapil Sangwan, who is reportedly operating from the UK. The MCOCA was invoked against Sangwan in 2024. Balyan was the alleged facilitator to settle the extortion demand made by Sangwan to a businessman. The police also claimed they had two witnesses statements against Balyan.

In the extortion case, Balyan was arrested on November 30 last year, hours after the BJP played an audio clip of what it claimed was a purported conversation between him and Sangwan.

“…the transcript of the audio conversation between the applicant (Balyan) and Kapil Sangwan indicates a potential fallout due to unknown reasons. This conversation suggests an active criminal nexus,” the court said while rejecting the second bail plea moved by Balyan in the case.

Balyan, who was represented by advocate M S Khan, argued in court that he had himself filed at least three complaints of extortion against Sangwan.

“If their relationship deteriorated subsequently and complaints were filed by the applicant, this does not absolve him from involvement in organised crime or abetment during the relevant timeframe; he must face the consequences. Even otherwise, the veracity of his complaints remains to be determined, which can only occur during the trial,” the judge said in his order.

Balyan also argued that he had been falsely implicated in the matter and that the investigation regarding his alleged role had been completed. It was his lawyer’s contention that there existed no “continuity of unlawful activity” which is a prerequisite for claiming that an organised crime had occurred.

Merely relying on past FIRs and chargesheets without “any new offence”, Khan argued, was not sufficient to invoke the MCOCA.

“A review of the numerous FIRs against the crime syndicate from 2021…reveals that …as many as 17 FIRs were lodged against the syndicate, and following the approval grant (required to proceed under MCOCA), besides the current FIR, additional FIRs have been registered against the syndicate,” the court observed, rejecting the claims of the defence counsel. It also noted that cognizance had been taken in four FIRs pertaining to the syndicate in the last 10 years.