‘Not an iota of evidence’: Court discharges ex-AAP MLA Naresh Balyan in extortion case

A Delhi court on Friday discharged former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Naresh Balyan in an extortion case linked to absconding UK-based gangster Kapil Sangwan, observing that in the absence of any direct evidence, police probe was conducted on the assumption that “suspects were the culprits”

A Delhi court on Friday discharged former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Naresh Balyan in an extortion case linked to absconding UK-based gangster Kapil Sangwan, observing that in the absence of any direct evidence, police probe was conducted on the assumption that “suspects were the culprits”.

The extortion case was lodged on May 31, 2023. (Shutterstock)

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Paras Dalal of Rouse Avenue courts, in an order delivered on Friday and released on Saturday, pulled up the prosecution for “losing crucial time” and “failing to collect direct evidence”, showing the former legislator’s links with the gangster.

Balyan will not walk out of jail, as he is in judicial custody in a case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The former MLA from Uttam Nagar has been in prison since January, 2025. He was granted bail on December 4, 2024, in the extortion case, but was later arrested in an MCOCA case lodged in August 2024 by the Crime Branch’s anti-gang squad.

The extortion case was lodged on May 31, 2023, in which a complainant claimed that he received a threatening call from a caller who introduced himself as Sangwan alias Nandu, demanded ₹1 crore as extortion money, and threatened dire consequences if the amount was not paid.

Balyan was arrested on the basis of a purported audio clip that police claimed recorded him and Sangwan allegedly discussing extortion demands and land deals.

Balyan, along with Sangwan, was booked under the penal sections relating to extortion, criminal conspiracy and destruction of evidence.

The extortion case formed the principal offence forming the basis of Balyan’s role in the MCOCA case, where police alleged that the former legislator was using the clout of Sangwan to target victims, used to extort through his associates and forced people to sell their property at a lesser amount to his associates, all as part of a “continuing unlawful activity”. The Delhi Police has booked nine other people, including Balyan and Sangwan, in the MCOCA case.

Delhi Police had claimed to possess an audio clip that was later posted on social media platforms and aired on news channels, purportedly containing a conversation between Balyan and Sangwan.

To be sure, a MCOCA case generally cannot survive if the main predicate or principal offence forming the basis of the case is discharged.

“There is not an iota of evidence that both accused persons (Balyan and Sangwan) conversed before receipt of threatening messages/audio recordings by the complainant. There is no evidence even prima facie that Balyan, or anyone on his behalf approached the complainant or met him when the threats were advanced in May/June 2023,” the court said.

“…it appears that the investigation has been conducted on assumption that both suspects are the culprits since the very beginning,” it added.

The court said that police lost time and failed to collect either any direct electronic implicating Balyan.

The court said that between July and August 2023, audio recordings purportedly of Balyan making threat calls were seized; however, the original recording was never traced, nor was the complainant’s mobile phone seized.

“There is no explanation as to what hindered police to launch investigation as soon as FIR was registered in July 2023 or in August 2023 when the audio surfaced online on Facebook. When the investigation was again picked up in November 2024, again no request letter was sent to the portal of Facebook for getting the registrant details, source and destination IPs of the alleged profile which uploaded the two audio files,” it said.

The court also set aside the prosecution’s case of a criminal conspiracy, stating that there was not a single piece of evidence to show that there existed any prior meeting of minds between the accused persons.