Naresh Balyan, a former member of the legislative assembly (MLA) from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), will remain in judicial custody after the Delhi High Court on Monday refused to grant him bail in a case registered under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), despite a trial court recently discharging him in a separate extortion case arising from similar allegations.
Justice Manoj Jain dismissed Mr Balyan's bail plea in the MCOCA case which alleges his involvement in an organised crime syndicate headed by gangster Kapil Sangwan, alias Nandu.
Mr Balyan has been in custody since 4 December 2024, when he was arrested by the Delhi Police Crime Branch under the stringent anti-organised crime law, shortly after securing bail in the extortion case.
The MCOCA case is based on allegations that Mr Balyan acted as a 'facilitator' for the organised crime syndicate allegedly operated by Mr Sangwan, who is believed to be absconding in the UK and is facing non-bailable warrants.
According to the prosecution, the Delhi Police has registered 16 first information reports (FIRs) against members of Mr Sangwan's alleged syndicate involving extortion, violence and other organised criminal activities across the national capital.
The prosecution opposed Mr Balyan's bail plea, arguing that there was sufficient material linking him to the syndicate and alleging that he actively facilitated its operations.
Earlier, on 15 January 2025, the trial court rejected Mr Balyan's bail application, observing substantial evidence of his alleged involvement in the organised crime syndicate and his ongoing unlawful activities as a member of the group.
Mr Balyan, however, maintained before the High Court that there was 'no shred of evidence' against him and described the prosecution's case as frivolous.
With the High Court rejecting his plea, Mr Balyan will continue to remain lodged in Mandoli Jail while the MCOCA case proceeds.
The High Court's order came just days after additional chief judicial magistrate Paras Dalal of the Rouse Avenue courts discharged Mr Balyan in a 2023 extortion case, holding that the Delhi police had failed to establish even a prima facie case against him.
The extortion case originated from a complaint filed in July 2023 by businessman Gurcharan Singh, who alleged that he had received WhatsApp calls and voice messages from persons claiming to represent Mr Sangwan and demanding ₹1 crore.
Mr Balyan was implicated after an audio recording, allegedly capturing a conversation between him and Mr Sangwan, surfaced publicly in August 2023.
However, while discharging the former MLA, the court observed that there was 'no iota of evidence' to establish that Mr Balyan had conspired with Mr Sangwan or participated in the alleged extortion conspiracy.
"There is no evidence even prima facie that accused no.2, or anyone on his behalf, approached the complainant or met him when the threats were advanced," the court observed.
The trial court sharply criticised the police investigation, pointing to multiple procedural deficiencies and unexplained delays.
The court noted that although the FIR was registered in July 2023, the investigation concluded only in June 2026, with long periods of inactivity between sporadic investigative steps.
One of the Court's principal concerns was the failure to seize the complainant's mobile phone which allegedly received the threatening WhatsApp calls and voice notes.
Instead, investigators relied on audio files copied onto pen drives without producing the original device or establishing an unbroken chain of custody.
The court also observed that investigators neither approached Facebook nor attempted to identify the individual who uploaded the viral audio recording, which later became a key part of the prosecution's case.
It further noted that the investigating officer personally downloaded the audio from a Facebook account, copied it onto a pen drive and certified its authenticity—a process the court said compromised the objectivity expected of an investigating officer.
Although a forensic report indicated similarities between the voices, the court observed that it did not examine critical digital evidence such as metadata, hash values or the original recording device.
The trial court also found no material indicating any prior meeting of minds between Mr Balyan and Mr Sangwan.
It observed that the prosecution had failed to establish even a prima facie conspiracy, despite relying entirely on circumstantial evidence.
The court further questioned the police's reliance on a senior police officer to identify Mr Sangwan's voice, noting that the officer was not a forensic expert and that he based his opinion largely on his memory of an arrest made several years earlier.
The order also pointed to other unexplored investigative leads, including references in the audio recordings to other individuals who were never examined, despite allegedly being part of the conversation.
While Mr Balyan has now been discharged in the extortion case because of insufficient evidence to frame charges, the MCOCA prosecution is distinct and centres on allegations that he was associated with an organised crime syndicate led by Mr Sangwan.
The Delhi police crime branch has already filed a charge-sheet in the MCOCA case naming Mr Balyan and others as alleged members of the syndicate.
With the High court declining bail, the former MLA will remain in custody as proceedings under the stringent organised crime law continue.
