Delhi High Court seeks police response on ex-MLA Balyan's bail plea in MCOCA case
2
3
New Delhi: Delhi High Court sought the response of police to the bail plea of former AAP MLA Naresh Balyan, arrested in a MCOCA case.
Justice Manoj Jain issued notice to Delhi Police on Balyan's bail plea and posted the hearing on July 3 while asking the superintendent of jail to send Balyan's nominal roll and a report on his medical status, as the accused has sought interim bail on health grounds.
The court also directed the state to file an updated status report in the matter.
Balyan's counsel submitted that his client was arrested in the case under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act on Dec 4, 2024, the day a trial court granted him bail in an alleged extortion case, and he had been in custody since then. Balyan previously withdrew the bail plea from the high court after police filed a chargesheet in the case.
He moved the trial court seeking bail, but it was rejected.
You Can Also Check:
Delhi AQI
|
Weather in Delhi
|
Bank Holidays in Delhi
|
Public Holidays in Delhi
Balyan had argued there was "no shred of evidence" against him and the case was "completely frivolous", while claiming that the FIR did not even mention his name. The counsel pointed out that the former lawmaker himself raised a complaint against the crime.
Delhi Police, however, opposed the bail plea, saying like Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, there was a bar on granting bail to an accused under MCOCA unless certain conditions, including reasonable grounds to show the accused did not commit the crime, were met, which was not the case here.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed!
IC Markets
Start Now
Undo
Claiming there was a "continuous unlawful activity" to sustain invocation of MCOCA against Balyan, the special counsel for police said no relief could be given to him.
Balyan was accused of being a "facilitator" in an organised crime syndicate. On Jan 15, a trial court denied bail to Balyan, before which Delhi Police had claimed that the investigation was at a crucial stage in the case and he could hamper the probe if allowed the reprieve.
The prosecutor cited 16 FIRs lodged against the alleged syndicate members in various parts of Delhi and claimed it "created havoc in the society and amassed huge illegal wealth".
New Delhi: Delhi High Court sought the response of police to the bail plea of former AAP MLA Naresh Balyan, arrested in a MCOCA case.
Justice Manoj Jain issued notice to Delhi Police on Balyan's bail plea and posted the hearing on July 3 while asking the superintendent of jail to send Balyan's nominal roll and a report on his medical status, as the accused has sought interim bail on health grounds.
The court also directed the state to file an updated status report in the matter.
Balyan's counsel submitted that his client was arrested in the case under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act on Dec 4, 2024, the day a trial court granted him bail in an alleged extortion case, and he had been in custody since then. Balyan previously withdrew the bail plea from the high court after police filed a chargesheet in the case.
He moved the trial court seeking bail, but it was rejected.
Balyan had argued there was "no shred of evidence" against him and the case was "completely frivolous", while claiming that the FIR did not even mention his name. The counsel pointed out that the former lawmaker himself raised a complaint against the crime.
Delhi Police, however, opposed the bail plea, saying like Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, there was a bar on granting bail to an accused under MCOCA unless certain conditions, including reasonable grounds to show the accused did not commit the crime, were met, which was not the case here.
Claiming there was a "continuous unlawful activity" to sustain invocation of MCOCA against Balyan, the special counsel for police said no relief could be given to him.
Balyan was accused of being a "facilitator" in an organised crime syndicate. On Jan 15, a trial court denied bail to Balyan, before which Delhi Police had claimed that the investigation was at a crucial stage in the case and he could hamper the probe if allowed the reprieve. The prosecutor cited 16 FIRs lodged against the alleged syndicate members in various parts of Delhi and claimed it "created havoc in the society and amassed huge illegal wealth".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘No locus standi to challenge such an order': SC dismisses child rights body's plea against verdict on Muslim girl's marriage
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) appeal challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that held that a 16-year-old Muslim girl can enter into a valid marriage, saying it did not have any locus standi in the matter. 'We fail to see how NCPCR can be aggrieved by such an order. If the High Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226, seeks to extend protection to two individuals, the NCPCR has no locus standi to challenge such an order. Dismissed,' a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan said. The counsel for the Commission said its challenge was on the question of law, whether a minor girl can enter into a legally valid marriage only because the personal law allows it. The bench, however, said, 'No question of law arises', adding, 'You challenge in an appropriate case please.' Justice Nagarathna also referred to minor teenagers falling in love and said such instances will have to be viewed distinctly. 'There is Pocso [Protection of Children from Sexual Offences] Act, which takes care of the penal cases, but there are romantic cases also where teenagers on the verge of majority run away, where there are genuine romantic cases, they want to get married…don't read such cases the same as criminal cases. We have to differentiate between criminal cases and this,' she said. 'Look at the trauma the girl undergoes if she loves a boy and he is sent to jail, because her parents would file a Pocso case to cover the elopement,' the judge added. A single-judge bench of the high court had on June 13 passed the order on a plea by a Pathankot-based Muslim couple who had approached the court for protection. The high court had said the issue for consideration in the case was not with regard to the validity of the marriage but to address the apprehension raised by the petitioners of danger to their life and liberty. It had directed the senior superintendent of police, Pathankot, to decide the representation of the petitioners and take necessary action as per law. 'The court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that the apprehension of the petitioners needs to be addressed. Merely because the petitioners have got married against the wishes of their family members, they cannot possibly be deprived of the fundamental rights as envisaged in the Constitution of India,' the high court had said.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
2023 law insulates CEC, EC from legal action; CECs removal only by Parliament
Agency: PTI Last Updated: New Delhi, Aug 19 (PTI) As opposition parties threaten the impeachment of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and action against the two election commissioners if the INDIA bloc comes to power, here is a look at the law on how they can be removed and whether they can be taken to court for decisions taken by them while in office. Clause 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 grants immunity to the CEC and ECs from any legal action for decisions taken while in office. '… no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against any person who is or was a Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner for any act, thing or word, committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty or function," the clause reads. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has threatened 'stern action" against Kumar and the two ECs over allegations of 'vote chori" (vote theft) through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar, when the INDIA bloc comes to power. Gandhi's threats came days after the CEC served him a seven-day ultimatum to submit a signed affidavit to back his vote-theft claims and said or else, his allegations will be considered invalid. According to Clause 11(1) of the Act, the CEC or an EC can, at any time, by writing under his hand addressed to the president, resign from his office. Clause 11(2) states that the CEC cannot be removed from his office except in like manner and on like grounds as needed for the removal a Supreme Court judge. Supreme Court and high court judges can be removed only through a motion passed by both houses of Parliament. A motion supported by 50 MPs of the Rajya Sabha or 100 MPs of the Lok Sabha has to be moved in Parliament and passed by the House with a two-thirds majority of those present. The law says the other ECs cannot be removed from office except on the CEC's recommendation. PTI NAB RC view comments First Published: August 19, 2025, 15:15 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Loading comments...
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Man assaulted by brother in Delhi's Sangam Vihar over personal dispute
A personal dispute turned violent in Delhi's Sangam Vihar on Monday, when a 49-year-old man was assaulted by his younger brother and associates, police said. According to Delhi Police, on Monday, a quarrel arising out of a personal dispute led to the assault of Mukesh Kumar Singhal(HT Photo/ Representational) According to Delhi Police, on Monday, a quarrel arising out of a personal dispute led to the assault of Mukesh Kumar Singhal (49) at Gali No. 9, Sangam Vihar, by Samshad alias Bhuri, his younger brother, and associates. The victim sustained lacerated wounds on his forehead and scalp, along with swelling on his left hand, and was admitted to Batra Hospital for medical treatment, the Police said. Following a PCR call, medical-legal certificate and the victim's statement, the police registered a case under Sections 110/3(5) BNS and 308 of the Indian Penal Code at Sangam Vihar Police Station. An investigation into the incident is ongoing, they added. More details are awaited.
