Delhi High Court Requests State's Stand on Bail Plea Filed by AAP MLA Naresh Balyan
In the case of Naresh Balyan v. State NCT of Delhi* The Delhi High Court on Monday issued a notice to the State, seeking its response to a bail application filed by Naresh Balyan, a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), in relation to his arrest in a case registered under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). A Delhi trial court recently denied the bail application of Naresh Balyan, leading the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) legislator to approach the High Court seeking relief. Justice Vikas Mahajan, while hearing the matter, issued a notice on the regular bail plea and requested a response from the Public Prosecutor representing the State of Delhi.
1/20/20251 min read
Case Overview
The present case arises from the arrest of Naresh Balyan, a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) representing the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), under the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The arrest pertains to allegations of organized criminal activities, for which the prosecution asserts Balyan’s active involvement.
Following the rejection of his bail plea by a trial court earlier this month, Balyan approached the Delhi High Court, seeking relief through a regular bail application. The plea highlights factors such as alleged procedural lapses, lack of concrete evidence, and the accused’s right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Court Analysis
Justice Vikas Mahajan presided over the matter and acknowledged the gravity of charges under the MCOCA. However, the court also emphasized the principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, particularly during the pendency of the trial. The court reviewed the submissions made by the petitioner, which included claims of procedural impropriety in the invocation of MCOCA and lack of direct evidence linking him to organized criminal activities.
On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor representing the State strongly opposed the bail plea, arguing that Balyan’s release could jeopardize the ongoing investigation and potentially influence witnesses. The court sought to balance the individual’s right to liberty with the necessity to ensure a fair investigation and public safety.
Judgment
The court, after hearing preliminary arguments, issued a notice to the State and directed the Public Prosecutor to file a detailed response to the bail application within a stipulated timeframe. The matter has been adjourned to a later date for further consideration.
In the interim, the court refrained from granting any relief to the petitioner, underscoring that the merits of the bail plea would be adjudicated based on the response of the State and the available evidence. The court further directed that the matter be expedited, considering its sensitive nature