AAP leader Naresh Balyan sent to judicial custody till Jan 9 in Delhi

The Delhi Police Crime Branch had sought another 10-day police custody of Balyan in an application before the court

A Special MP/MLA court on Friday sent Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) legislator Naresh Balyan to judicial custody till January 9 in connection with a Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) case lodged against him with links to UK-based gangster Kapil Sangwan.

AAP MLA Naresh Balyan. (Arvind Yadav/HT Photo)

The order was passed by special judge Kaweri Baweja of the Rouse Avenue Court. The Delhi Police Crime Branch had sought another 10-day police custody of Balyan in an application before the court.

Special public prosecutor Akhand Pratap Singh, while seeking custody of Balyan, submitted that nine more names linked to Balyan have surfaced during the MCOCA case investigation against him and he needs to be interrogated for the same.

Meanwhile, advocate MS Khan, on behalf of Balyan, while relying on 15 cases lodged against Kapil Sangwan, said that charge sheets in all these cases have been filed and so, a fresh probe cannot start in these cases. “For an MCOCA offence, the continuation of an offence must be shown...the same has no bearing in the present case,” he argued before the court.

On December 6, Balyan was sent to police custody till December 13, allowing the Delhi Police’s request to interrogate Balyan in connection with a case under MCOCA registered in August.

Special judge Kaveri Baweja of the Rouse Avenue court had passed the order on a remand application submitted by the police. Although police had sought a 10-day remand, the judge limited it to seven days.

Balyan’s legal team, led by senior advocates Siddharth Luthra and Tanvir Ahmed Mir, had contested the remand, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction under MCOCA.

Luthra had argued: “MCOCA is a special act so it will be a travesty of justice for this court to exercise jurisdiction over this case...the governing law in this case is MCOCA and that can’t be supplanted.”

Luthra asserted that only a court specifically authorised by the Delhi high court could hear MCOCA cases, adding that entertaining the application would amount to overstepping statutory provisions. He emphasised that the Delhi Police’s approach to seeking custody through this court was procedurally flawed.

The case has drawn attention due to Balyan’s recent legal troubles. He was granted bail on December 5 in a separate extortion case linked to UK-based gangster Kapil Sangwan. However, on the same day, police arrested him again, citing statements from two victims implicating Balyan in the MCOCA case.

Mir had argued that these statements, which allegedly form the basis of the case, had since been retracted, making them unreliable. He criticised the police’s grounds for arrest, noting that Balyan had himself filed complaints against Sangwan, denying any association with the gangster.

The matter then was initially presented before additional sessions judge Vandana Jain of the Dwarka courts, who declined to entertain the police’s remand application, citing a lack of jurisdiction. It was then redirected to the rouse avenue principal district and sessions judge, who assigned it to the MP/MLA court for consideration.