The Supreme Court today issued notice on the bail plea of former Aam Aadmi Party MLA Naresh Balyan in a case registered under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta granted four weeks' time to the Delhi Government to file its counter affidavit.

The prosecution's case concerns an organised crime syndicate allegedly headed by gangster Kapil Sangwan. According to the prosecution, Sangwan and his associates were involved in multiple cases of extortion, threats, shootings and grabbing properties. The prosecution alleged that the syndicate threatened businessmen and property dealers for extortion and also used threats to force property owners to sell plots at low prices.

Balyan has challenged the Delhi High Court's August 3 judgment which dismissed his appeal against the trial court's refusal to grant him bail. The case arises from an FIR registered by the Delhi Police Crime Branch on August 28, 2024, under Sections 3 and 4 of the MCOCA. Balyan was arrested on December 4, 2024. His first bail application was rejected by the trial court on January 15, 2025, while the second was rejected on May 27, 2025.

While refusing bail, the Delhi High Court held that there was sufficient material at the bail stage to show Balyan's alleged nexus with an organised crime syndicate headed by Kapil Sangwan. Around 17 FIRs had been registered in relation to the syndicate's activities.

As regards Balyan, the prosecution relied on alleged conversations between him and Sangwan, statements of protected witnesses, confessional statements of co-accused and other material collected during the investigation. The prosecution alleged that Balyan facilitated the syndicate by identifying potential targets for extortion and helping create disputes over properties, after which the syndicate allegedly threatened property owners and forced them to sell their properties at lower prices.

The High Court also noted that an audio-video recording purportedly containing a conversation between Balyan and Sangwan had circulated on social media. Balyan's specimen voice was obtained with the permission of the designated court and, according to the forensic report, matched the voice in the recording. The Court, however, noted that there was not complete clarity about the identity of the caller at the other end.

The prosecution also relied on confessional statements of co-accused Rohit Sharma and Sachin Chhikara, recorded on December 2 and 3, 2024. The High Court held that any question regarding retraction of those statements would have to be examined during trial and that the statements could not be discarded outright at the stage of bail.

Balyan had argued before the High Court that the invocation of MCOCA was legally unsustainable as there was no fresh continuing unlawful activity attributable to him. He also argued that the prosecution had relied on earlier FIRs and chargesheets without showing a fresh offence and that there was no material establishing that he was a member of the organised crime syndicate.

The High Court rejected the argument that the statutory requirement of more than one chargesheet within the preceding ten years, in which cognizance had been taken, had to be satisfied against Balyan individually. It held that the requirement was syndicate-centric and that the relevant question was whether the accused had a nexus with the organised crime syndicate.

The High Court also rejected Balyan's argument that registration of a separate MCOCA FIR amounted to double jeopardy. It held that the investigating agency could either incorporate MCOCA provisions into an existing FIR or register a fresh FIR after obtaining the requisite approval.

On the issue of bail, the High Court noted that Section 21(4) of MCOCA requires the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

The High Court ultimately held that the material collected during the investigation disclosed a discernible nexus between Balyan and the syndicate and that the element of continuing unlawful activity was present. It therefore found no merit in his appeal and rejected his bail plea.

The Court also noted that arguments on charge were already being heard by the trial court. It held that although Balyan had a right to speedy trial, the mere fact of prolonged custody could not by itself be treated as a decisive factor for grant of bail in a case involving stringent provisions of MCOCA.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 14919/2026

Case Title – Naresh Balyan v. NCT of Delhi