“No Urgency In MLA Naresh Balyan’s Interim Bail Plea”: Police To Delhi High Court

The Delhi Police, on Thursday, apprised the Delhi High Court that there exists no immediate necessity to address the interim bail application submitted by AAP leader and Uttam Nagar MLA Naresh Balyan, even with the impending assembly elections.

The case is rooted in allegations under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).

Justice Vikas Mahajan underscored that the rigorous “twin conditions” prescribed under MCOCA for bail apply uniformly to both regular and interim bail petitions. He suggested prioritizing the adjudication of Balyan’s regular bail plea over his request for interim relief. “When twin conditions have to be fulfilled for interim bail also, we should consider it finally,” the court remarked while scheduling the next hearing for January 28.

The prosecution drew attention to the Supreme Court’s divided judgment regarding interim relief for Tahir Hussain, an accused in the Delhi riots, to argue against the urgency of Balyan’s petition.

However, Balyan’s counsel maintained that no prima facie offence under MCOCA had been established against their client and emphasized the necessity of interim bail, particularly in light of his wife’s candidacy in the assembly elections scheduled for February 5.

The senior counsel representing Balyan challenged the allegations as devoid of evidentiary foundation, asserting that his client had no affiliation with the organized crime syndicate allegedly led by Kapil Sangwan. “I am not linked to the gang at all. I am the one filing complaints against them,” Balyan contended.

Further, his counsel disputed the legal admissibility of the purported confessional statements implicating him, asserting that the arrest stemmed from a scenario where Balyan had already been granted bail in an unrelated extortion case.

Countering these claims, the prosecution argued that Balyan had acted as a “facilitator” for an organized crime network and cautioned that his release could compromise the integrity of the ongoing investigation. The prosecution underscored the gravity of the accusations, highlighting the registration of 16 FIRs against alleged syndicate members across Delhi and describing the syndicate’s activities as having “created havoc in society and amassed substantial illegal wealth.”

Balyan’s legal representatives dismissed the case as “completely frivolous” and lacking evidentiary merit. They pointed out that the FIR did not name Balyan as an accused and emphasized his proactive role in reporting the crimes in question. Following the trial court’s denial of Balyan’s bail plea on January 15, the police reiterated their opposition to his release, arguing that it could obstruct the progress of the investigation.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International