Delhi High Court
Shri Naresh Balyan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 August, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 28.07.2026
Judgment Delivered on: 03.08.2026
+ CRL.A. 1676/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1302/2025
SHRI NARESH BALYAN .....Appellant
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Memo of Appearance:
For Appellant: Ms. Rebecca M. John, Mr. Vivek Jain, Mr. Rohit Kumar, Mr. Sadiq Noor
and Mr. Pravir Singh, Advocates.
For Respondent: Mr. Amit Prasad, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, SPP for
State and Mr. Ayodhya Prasad, Mr. Hritwik Maurya, Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Advocates with
ACP Bhagwati Prasad, Insp. Krishan Kumar and SI Narender Kumar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
MANOJ JAIN, J
1. Appellant Naresh Balyan is in custody in a case related to FIR No.
165/2024 registered on 28.08.2024 by PS Crime Branch for commission of
offences under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA1.
2. He was arrested on 04.12.2024.
3. He takes exception to order dated 27.05.2025 passed by learned Trial
Court whereby he has been denied bail.
4. It will be worthwhile to mention here that, initially, a bail application
had been filed before this Court which was, eventually, permitted to be
converted into an appeal under Section 12 of MCOCA.
5. Before the learned Trial Court, he had pleaded for bail while
contending that he had been falsely implicated and that MCOCA did not get
1
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 1 of 32
18:53:52
attracted. His bail pleas did not find favour. His first such application was
rejected on 15.01.2025 and second on 27.05.2025 by the learned Trial Court.
6. The case is at initial stage as charges are yet to be ascertained.
7. In fact, arguments on charge are being heard by the learned Trial
Court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
8. Let me narrate the facts, in brief.
9. As per prosecution, Kapil Sangwan @ Nandu and his gang members
were involved in committing organized crime and multiple cases had been
registered against them in Delhi and NCR2. Kapil Sangwan was heading a
syndicate and his criminal activities were within the purview of “organized
crime”. He was carrying his such activities with the help of his old
associates i.e. his real brother Jyoti Prakash Baba, Sachin Chikara and
others. He obtained passport on forged/fake documents and, eventually, fled
the country. One other FIR (FIR 163/2019, PS Special Cell) had already
been registered against him, in which he had even been charge-sheeted but
despite that he continued to indulge in criminal activities unrelentingly,
thereby creating menace and panic. He was the brain behind planning and
execution of various criminal activities and was also recruiting others,
thereby gaining enormous monetary wealth to strengthen his crime
syndicate.
10. A proposal dated 19.08.2024 was, accordingly, submitted by ACP,
Crime Branch before the competent authority for according approval for
registering another case under MCOCA against him and his gang members
2
National Capital Region
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 2 of 32
18:53:52
and the competent authority3 accorded such approval. It, while doing so,
took note of the fact that there were four other FIRs4, in which cognizance
had already been taken.
11. Approval was accorded on 27.08.2024 and FIR in question was
registered on 28.08.2024.
12. FIR is a comprehensive one and as per crux of FIR, Kapil Sangwan
and his associates were running organized crime syndicate and their
syndicate was involved in series of serious crimes, thereby becoming a
terror in the area. It refers to several incidents in which several businessmen
and property dealers were threatened to pay extortion money and even
shooters were sent at their premises. Besides the abovesaid four FIRs,
reference was made to several other cases in order to demonstrate the modus
operandi of their syndicate. Names of several associates of Kapil Sangwan
were also mentioned in FIR, which included Rohit Sharma @ Anna, Sunil @
Silla, Sachin Chhikara, Ritik @ Peter, Ankesh Lakra.
13. As per the allegations made in FIR, there were many other associates,
who were also part of the crime syndicate and were carrying out activities on
the directions of Kapil Sangwan and other gang heads. There were repeated
shootouts in the area which had created a reign of fear and terror and since
general public was not ready to utter anything against them, the gang
members were indulging in extortion from property dealers and
businessmen. These gang members also used to prepare false documents of
vacant plots and used to take possession of such plots and then used to
3
Additional Commissioner of Police (ACP), Crime Branch
4
FIR No.14/22 dated 11.01.2022 u/s 336/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act, FIR No.40/22 dated 30.01.2022 u/s
387/440/506/120B/34 IPC, PS Jafarpur Kalan, Delhi, FIR No.60/23 dated 22.02.2023 u/s
387/336/506/507/120B/34 IPC r/w 25/27 Arms Act, PS Mohan Garden, Delhi & FIR No.265/23 dated
14.04.2023 u/s 302/201/120B/34 IPC r/w 25/27 Arms Act, PS Bindapur, Delhi
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 3 of 32
18:53:52
coerce the owners to either surrender the plot or to sell it at throwaway price.
14. After registration of the abovesaid FIR, accused Ritik @ Peter was
arrested on 05.10.2024 while Rohit Sharma @ Anna and Sachin Chhikara
on 29.11.2024.
15. The appellant herein was arrested on 30.11.2024, albeit, in another
FIR i.e. 191/2023, PS Mohan Garden.
16. Such other FIR had been registered on the basis of complaint made by
one Gurcharan Singh, who claimed that he had received a call from an
international number, followed by a whatsapp voice note, whereby he was
asked to pay Rs. one crore as protection money and was threatened that in
case the money was not paid, he would meet the same fate as that of
Surender Matiala.
17. Appellant was granted bail in such other case i.e. FIR No.191/2023 on
04.12.2024 and same day, Investigating Agency arrested him in the instant
case i.e. FIR No.165/2024, PS Crime Branch.
18. Chargesheet5 has been filed.
19. Learned Trial Court, after perusal of the main chargesheet, took
cognizance on 24.02.2025. It observed that there were series of FIRs which
revealed a pattern in commission of offences of extortion and murder. These
offences had been committed by the members of organized crime syndicate
with sole object to create terror in the minds of innocent people and to gain
pecuniary and undue economic benefit.
20. A bare reading of charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheets
would indicate that there are in all 13 accused persons i.e. A-1 Ritik @
5
Main charge-sheet has been filed on 26.12.2024. Thereafter, five supplementary charge-sheets were filed
on 24.02.2025, 01.05.2025, 14.07.2025, 20.09.2025 and 24.12.2025, respectively.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 4 of 32
18:53:52
Peter, A-2 Rohit Sharma @ Anna, A-3 Sachin Chikara, A-4 Naresh Balyan,
A-5 Vijay Gahlot, A-6 Sahil @ Popli, A-7 Jyoti Prakash @ Baba, A-8
Vikash Gahlot, A-9 Veenita, A-10 Amar @ Amardeep Lochab, A-11 Kapil
Sangwan @ Nandu (already declared proclaimed offender on 15.05.2025)
and A-12 Manoj Yadav @ Kaira. Accused Umed Singh, mentioned in
column No.12, was shown „absconding‟.
21. Appellant was, though, named in the main chargesheet, investigation
about his complicity was under scrutiny and, therefore, he was not
immediately chargesheeted.
22. He was, eventually, sent up to face trial through second
supplementary chargesheet wherein his role has been dealt with extensively.
23. The Evidence Matrix against him, as mentioned therein, is extracted
as under: –
i. His voice recording with Kapil Sangwan @ Nandu has been seized which
revealed that his activities are covered under the definition of continuing
unlawful activities, organized crime syndicate as defined and described under
section 2(1)(d)(e) and (f) of MCOC Act 1999, as extended to the NCT of Delhi.
ii. Voice recording indicated that he was directly linked with Kapil
Sangwan/Nandu and indulged in unlawful activities of grabbing property by
making these a disputed property, providing the potential targets and by
making mediation. Voice sampling of accused Naresh Baliyan has been done
and sent to CFSL, Lodhi Colony Delhi for matching with the voice recording
which was viral on Facebook and downloaded from Facebook links and the
voice recording obtained from Times Now Bharat between accused and Kapil
Sangwan Nandu.
iii. Following disputed property has been identified on his instance, he has
invested ill gotten money in the properties in cash:-
a). One built up property in the name of Vishal Mega Mart Near Kakrola
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 5 of 32
18:53:52
More on main Najaf Garh Uttam Nagar Road was shown by him is in the
name of his wife. It is built up property and running a mall in the same
premises basement, ground floor and Ist floor and stated that this is the
property which he procured in 2020- 21 and the cash amount received
through illegal means has been invested in the same.
(b) One property at main Uttam Nagar to Najafgarh Road, Piller No. 766
was identified by accused Naresh Balyan identified and known as
“Nursery Wala Plot” which was earlier under law full
ownership/possession of owner of the property and now one Sudhir
illegally occupied this property with the connivance of accused Naresh
Balyan and Kapil Sangwan @ Nandu.
(c) One disputed property at Guru Harkishan Nagar Extension Part-I
Mansa Ram Nanhe Park Road, Bindapur, Delhi. This property is also
known as dust land. The said property is in the name of owner of the land
(witness). The accused ropped syndicate head to purchase the same land
in very much low price and when the deal was denied by the owner, he
received extortion call of Rs one crore from Kapil Sangwan @ Nandu and
given life threat on non payment hence he paid Rs. 20 Lakh through the
accused.
iv. He was found involved in following cases:-
a) FIR No. 191/2023 u/s- 387/506/120B/34 IPC PS- Mohan Garden.
v. The statements of independent witnesses and police officials u/s 180 BNSS as
well as u/s 183 BNSS have been recorded which proves his role in the
syndicate as facilitator/ member. Accused was active member of Kapil
Sangwan@Nandu Gang as he was found assisting committing extortion and
providing the potential targets for illegally grabbing of land/plot of victims.
vi. He was named as facilitator and associate of Kapil Sangwan@Nadu Gang in
the confessional statements of accused persons namely Sachin Chikkara and
Rohit @ Anna @ Gollu recorded u/s 18 of MCOC Act. As per section 18 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 6 of 32
18:53:52
MCOC Act, it is admissible evidence before the court of law.
vii. There is technical connectivity between accused Naresh Balyan with Kapil
Sangwan@Nandu and also with gang members as revealed during
investigation as even after taking precautions sometimes he had connected with
the IPs of UK from where the syndicate head operating.
viii. He had procured all the mobile numbers in the name of knowns to avoid the
responsibility and used IP hider Apps and VPN Apps to make himself safe from
the tracking of law enforcement agencies.
ix. During investigation the bank account details of accused his wife and the
institutions run by his wife obtained and found that huge cash has been
invested in construction of Vishal Mega Mart. The analysis of the accounts has
been done and queries have been made from the wife of accused.
x. The ITRs of accused have been received and discrepancies have been noticed
in the same and the ITRs of wife of accused are awaited, when the same will
receive it will clear which amount the accused mentioned in ITRs and which is
the cost used in construction of the building.
xi. One property bearing khasra no 43//12/3/2 (1-3), 19 (4-16), 20 (4-16), 21/1
(4-12), and 44//25/3 (1-12), undivided property of four legal hears situated at
revenue estate of Najafgarh, Goyla Dairy Delhi was found purchased on the
name of Umed Singh conspired with accused Naresh Balyan involving Kapil
Sangwan @ Nandu and purchased in low price, exerted pressure on witness to
sell his share at the same rate at which his brother had sold his portion.
However, witness intended to sell his share at a higher price.
24. The bail has been declined, inter alia, observing that there is ample
material on record against the appellant and, therefore, the Bar provided
under Section 21 (4) of MCOCA stands attracted. Learned Special Court
also relied upon the fact that the presumption under Section 22 of MCOCA
is also prima facie applicable and the factual matrix indicated criminal
nexus. It also relied upon the statements of the witnesses, including
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 7 of 32
18:53:52
protected witnesses, confessional statements, audio recordings and came to
the conclusion that there was nothing to indicate that the approval given by
the Competent Authority was mechanical or that the material produced
before such Authority was insufficient. It also held that there was no double
jeopardy involved and prosecution was able to show the crucial element of
“continuous unlawful activity”.
SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT
25. Ms. Rebecca M. John, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant is a law-abiding citizen, with deep social roots and
enjoys unblemished reputation in society. He is actively engaged in public
service and social work. He began his public service by becoming a
Municipal Councillor in the year 2012 and, thereafter, became MLA6 from
Uttar Nagar, Vidhan Sabha Constituency in two consecutive assembly
elections held in Delhi in 2015 and 2020. She submits that in order to
prevent him to seek a third consecutive term as MLA, the appellant was
falsely implicated in FIR Nos.191/2023, PS Mohan Garden and, thereafter,
in the instant FIR i.e. FIR 165/2024. Her prime contentions can be
enumerated as under: –
(i) The present case is a glaring example of abuse of MCOCA.
Approval, purportedly given under Section 23 of MCOCA, does not
satisfy the basic threshold requirement as there is complete absence
of any fresh activity which is sine qua non for invoking MCOCA.
Moreover, there is no application of mind while according approval
under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA. The Investigating Agency had
misconstrued the connotation of offence of organized crime and
6
Member of the Legislative Assembly
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 8 of 32
18:53:52
though the police had made reference to 15 previous FIRs but there
was nothing to indicate any fresh act in the present FIR to show the
continuance, as mandated in MCOCA whereas as per Section 2(d) of
MCOCA, there is obligatory requirement of having evidence of a
fresh Act, demonstrating continuity in order to qualify it to be an
organized crime and, therefore, mere reliance of past FIRs and
charge-sheets, without any fresh incident or criminal activity, would
be insufficient to invoke MCOCA.
(ii) The arrest and cognizance for stringent provisions under MCOCA
is non est and illegal for the reason that there was nothing to indicate
that there was more than one charge-sheet filed against the appellant
within the preceding period of ten years in which the Court had also
taken cognizance.
(iii) There is no material to indicate that the appellant is member of
an organized crime syndicate and he has been roped in on the basis of
unverified and unauthenticated audio clips.
(iv) Reliance on the alleged confessional statements of co-accused is
completely misplaced. Firstly, because of the fact that these were
obtained belatedly; secondly, because these confessional statements
were immediately retracted by the makers; and thirdly, the
confessional statement of co-accused has no evidentiary value and
cannot form the basis of conviction. Since there is no other
independent corroborating material against the appellant, the case
cannot be proceeded further merely on the basis of retracted
confessional statements.
(v) The statements of protected witnesses, code name “GAMMA-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 9 of 32
18:53:52
3″ and “GAMMA-4” also do not indict or implicate the appellant.
These statements lack probative value and cannot be utilized to deny
bail to the appellant.
(vi) The appellant himself had been a victim of threats, which he
received from none other than Kapil Sangwan @ Nandu himself. The
appellant sent written complaints to the police on 19.12.2022,
03.07.2023 and 05.07.2023, clearly detailing the danger to his life
and sought police protection as he apprehended serious threats from
him and his associates. The threats were found to be genuine and,
therefore, the appellant was, even, provided security. However,
ignoring the same, he has now been maliciously and vexatiously
implicated as member of the same very organized crime syndicate.
The complaints made by him which were prior in time, clearly,
divulged that he himself had been receiving threats from Kapil
Sangwan @ Nandu and, therefore, there was no reason or occasion
for him to have associated himself with such a gangster.
(vii) There is nothing to suggest that appellant had acquired any
immoveable property or accumulated any cash which could be
branded as „proceeds of crime‟. The acquisition of immoveable
property is consequent upon sale of one property. The sale proceeds
were transferred by him in the account of his wife and his wife, on the
basis of such consideration, had acquired other property. The
construction cost was incurred by her brother and, therefore, there is
no material which may indicate that he had any unaccounted property
or cash.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 10 of 32
18:53:52
26. Reliance has been placed upon Madan vs. State of Maharashtra7,
Sachin Bansal Ghaiwal vs. State8; Prafulla Uddhav Shende vs. State of
Maharashtra9; Darasing and Others vs. State of Maharashtra10; Bharat
Shantilal Shah vs. State of Maharashtra11; State of Maharashtra vs. Bharat
Shantilal Shah12; John D‟Souza vs. ACP, Mumbai13; Amitbhai Anil Chandra
Shah vs. Central Bureau of Investigation14; TT Anthony vs. State of Kerala15;
State of Maharashtra vs. Lalit Somdutta Nagpal16; Ranjitsing
Bharamjeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra17; Prem Prakash vs.
Union of India18; Bhuboni Sahu vs. The King19; Haricharan Kurmi vs. State
of Bihar20; Suresh & Anr. vs. State of Haryana21; Yedala Subba Rao vs.
Union of India22; Siddhant vs. State of Maharashtra23; Rajesh Kumar vs.
State (NCT of Delhi)24; Arun vs. State of (NCT of Delhi)25; Manish Sisodia
vs. Directorate of Enforcement26; Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation27; Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab28; Javed Gulam Nabi
7
Crl. Appeal No.308/2022
8
2014 SCC OnLine Bom 725
9
2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1848
10
2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1538
11
2003 SCC OnLine Bom 1361
12
(2008) 13 SCC 5
13
2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1621
14
(2013) 6 SCC 348
15
(2001) 6 SCC 181
16
(2007) 4 SCC 171
17
(2005) 5 SCC 294
18
2024 SCC OnLine 2270
19
1949 SCC OnLine PC 12
20
AIR 1964 SC 1184
21
(2018) 18 SCC 654
22
(2023) 6 SCC 65
23
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3798
24
2025 SCC OnLine Del 3256
25
2025 SCC OnLine Del 2211
26
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920
27
(2022) 10 SCC 51
28
(1977) 4 SCC 291
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 11 of 32
18:53:52
Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra29; Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh30 and Jitender Dixit vs. State
(NCT of Delhi)31.
CONTENTIONS OF STATE
27. All such contentions have been refuted by Sh. Amit Prasad, learned
Senior Advocate and Special Counsel for State.
28. He submits that the appellant is an active member of syndicate in
question and the material collected during the investigation is sufficient to
demonstrate that he was in direct contact with Kapil Sangwan, who headed
such syndicate. The appellant used to provide information about potential
extortion targets to the head of the syndicate so that they can be threatened
by Kapil Sangwan @ Nandu and his associates. The appellant used to make
agreement to sell in the name of accused Umed Singh to portray such
properties to be disputed and thereafter on the basis of threats, the bonafide
sellers used to be compelled to sell the same, at a throwaway price. He
contends that the appellant is part of the organized crime syndicate and his
role is to be evaluated from the point of view of his association and nexus
with the syndicate, and not individually. He submits that there is no
requirement in law that more than one charge-sheet should be against the
same individual. The pre-requisite is that charge-sheet should be against the
„organized crime syndicate‟ engaged in “continuing unlawful activity”. He
states that the requirement of law is not individual-centric but syndicate-
centric. He submits that, though, the stringent provisions of MCOCA could
have been added in any existing FIR, there is no double jeopardy involved
29
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693
30
(1978) 1 SCC 240
31
2025 SCC OnLine Del 3445
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 12 of 32
18:53:52
here as fresh FIR under provisions of MCOCA can be independently
registered, if upon assessment of the prior criminal activities and on-going
unlawful acts, the Investigating Agency determines that the statutory
threshold for invoking MCOCA is met. He also contends that for invocation
of MCOCA, it is not mandatory that each member of the syndicate should
have a direct role to play in the foundational crime and even if, anyone, as a
member facilitates the commission of offence or abets the offence, such act
of facilitation and abetment would also, clearly, attract the penal provisions
of MCOCA.
29. Sh. Prasad further contends that there is no retraction of any
confession. He supplements that confessional statements, even if assumed to
have been retracted, continue to be admissible and the aspect of retraction
can be gone into appropriately during the trial only and thus, the alleged
retraction cannot be made basis for seeking bail. He also submits that the
approval granted under Section 23(1)(a) and sanction accorded under
Section 23(2) of MCOCA are separate and distinct and the validity thereof
can be gone into at post-trial stage only. He asserts that there is strong
evidence to indicate that the appellant had possession of extorted money
which he invested in acquiring other properties and that unexplained entries
and acquisition have been rightly taken as unaccounted money constituting
„proceeds of crime‟.
30. Lastly but most importantly, Sh. Prasad highlights that as per Section
21(4) of MCOCA, the Court has to be satisfied that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and is
not likely to commit any offence, while enlarged on bail. He submits that the
appellant does not fulfil the abovesaid twin-conditions. He reiterates that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 13 of 32
18:53:52
MCOCA is applied only when any such organized crime becomes a menace
and threat to the society and cannot be prevented by taking recourse to
existing legal framework, meant for general offences. He states that when
the members of syndicate are found involved in organized crime, there is a
serious adverse effect on the society and, therefore, no case for grant of bail
is made out. He submits that 12 accused persons have already been charge-
sheeted. The head of syndicate i.e. Kapil Sangwan @ Nandu has been
declared „proclaimed offender‟ and qua him, there is a request to hold trial
in absentia. He submits that since the offences are having serious
implications, the delay itself cannot earn any compassion to the appellant as
the societal interest is also required to be balanced out. He submits that the
case is at the stage of consideration of charge and every effort would be
made to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in the matter.
31. He also relies upon Kavitha Lankesh v. State of Karnataka and
Others32, Prasad Shrikant Purohit Vs. State of Maharashtra33, Zakir Abdul
Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors34, Vinod G Asrani Vs. State of
Maharashtra35, Praveen Venkatesh Takalki Vs. National Investigation
Agency36, Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur Vs. State of Maharashtra37, Kamlesh
Kothari v. State (NCT of Delhi)38, Sachin Bansilal Ghaiwal Vs. State of
Maharashtra39, Tasleem Ahmed Vs. State of NCT of Delhi40, Leena Paulose
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 14 of 32
18:53:52
Vs. State of NCT of Delhi41, State of Maharashtra Vs. Vishwanath Maranna
Shetty42, Jayshree Kanabar Vs. State of Maharashtra43, Mujahid S/o Ibrahim
Pathan Vs. The State of Maharashtra44 and Digvijay Saroha Vs. State45.
ANALYSIS OF RIVAL CONTENTIONS
32. Before adverting to the contentions raised at the Bar, this Court needs
to remind itself about three imperative aspects.
33. Firstly, the contentions are in context of seeking bail.
34. At such initial stage, it, therefore, will not be appropriate for the Court
to enter into minute and extensive discussion about the material collected
during the investigation. The analysis, therefore, has to be a surface-level
analysis in order to satisfy i) whether the material collected by the
prosecution is sufficient to invoke MCOCA and ii) whether all the requisite
threshold requirements for invocation of MCOCA have been met or not.
35. Secondly, the Court also has to be cognizant of the fact as per one of
the mandatory requirements given under Section 21 of MCOCA, any such
person cannot be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and
that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
36. As has been rightly observed in Ranjitsing (supra), Section 21(4) of
MCOCA is to be construed reasonably so as to maintain a delicate balance
between a judgment of acquittal or conviction and an order granting bail
much before commencement of trial and, therefore, the restrictions on the
power of the Court, as aforesaid, should not be pushed too far. Although,
41
Bail Appln. 1802/2024
42
(2012) 10 SCC 561
43
(2025) 2 SCC 797
44
2014 SCC OnLine BOM 4048
45
2019 SCC OnLine Del 10324
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 15 of 32
18:53:52
comprehensive examination may not be required, the Court, indeed, must
satisfy itself whether the material placed on record is, so to say, sufficient to
attract invocation of relevant provisions of the MCOCA or not. In-depth
analysis may not be desirable but basic satisfaction needs to be accorded.
Thus, the duty of the Court at such initial stage is not to weigh the evidence
meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities.
37. A caveat, right here. The test for the purposes of coming to the
abovesaid satisfaction at the stage of bail is milder vis-Ã -vis the scrutiny
which is undertaken at the time of consideration of charge.
38. Thirdly, the objective behind enactment of MCOCA is to tackle with
the menace of criminal activities by organised crime syndicate. The
Statement of Objects and Reasons of MCOCA also records that organized
crime is serious threat to our society as it knows no national boundaries and
is fuelled by the illegal wealth generated by target killing, extortion,
smuggling, kidnapping for ransom, collection of protection money etc., and
all such activities have serious adverse effect on our economy. The need
arose because the existing legal framework was looking inadequate and
inept to deal with the same. Thus, enactment is, therefore, with a special
purpose to tackle the menace of such serious offences which are committed
in an organized manner. The Act, in order to achieve the abovesaid objective
has, therefore, stringent and deterrent provisions – both penal and
procedural. Needless to say, the consideration of the present appeal has to be
also in synchronisation with the abovesaid objective behind incorporation of
MCOCA. Leena Paulose (supra) also declares that the bail provisions under
MCOCA provide stricter regime as compared to the one provided under
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and, therefore, degree of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 16 of 32
18:53:52
satisfaction is also required to be much stronger.
39. I may also, right here, make reference to Abhishek v. State of
Maharashtra46 In said case, related to MCOCA, Hon‟ble Supreme Court
elaborated about the applicability of rule of strict construction by observing
as under:-
“So far as the applicability of the rule of strict construction qua MCOCA is
concerned, it being a special penal statute, this much is clear that no one is to be
made subject to this law by implication or by presumption; and all doubts
concerning its application would, ordinarily, be resolved in favour of the accused.
However, the rule of strict construction cannot be applied in an impracticable
manner so as to render the statute itself nugatory. In other words, the rule of strict
construction of a penal statute or a special penal statute is not intended to put all
the provisions in such a tight iron cast that they become practically unworkable,
and thereby, the entire purpose of the law is defeated. At this juncture, we may
profitably refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Balram Kumawat v.
Union of India & Ors.: (2003) 7 SCC 628, that the purpose of law is not to allow
the offender to sneak out of the meshes of law.”
40. I have given anxious consideration to the rival contentions and
perused the precedents cited at the Bar. These precedents would be referred
to, wherever so required.
41. The appreciation would be essentially based on two broad aspects –
whether the threshold mandatory requirements are met or not and whether
allegations suggest commission of any offence under MCOCA or not.
42. Let me consider all these technical and factual aspects.
43. The prime-most contention coming from the side of appellant is that
the invocation of the MCOCA is unjustifiable and without any basis as there
46
2022 SCC OnLine SC 678
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 17 of 32
18:53:52
is complete absence of any fresh “continuing unlawful activity” on the part
of the appellant and, therefore, the approval is also without application of
mind. It is argued that registration of FIR under stringent provisions of
MCOCA must be predicated on a fresh act and FIR cannot be registered
solely on the basis of earlier incidents, without disclosing any recent activity
attributable to any such accused. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant strongly relies upon John D‟Souza (supra) and Bharat
Shantilal Shah (supra). She also contends that the registration of fresh FIR
on the same facts or cause of action is impermissible.
44. According to her, the prosecution has, merely, referred to and relied
upon prior chargesheets and has not bothered to disclose any distinct recent
act of organised crime. She submits that the two chargesheets cited by the
prosecution which, allegedly, formed the basis of the present proceedings,
are pending trial and these matters are being adjudicated independently and
these cannot be re-clubbed or re-characterised under present FIR, branding
the same as part of MCOCA offence. Doing so, according to her, would
amount to double jeopardy and would violate the principle of finality and
judicial propriety. In this regard, she relies upon Amitbhai Anil Chandra
Shah (supra) and TT Anthony (supra).
45. There is no requirement of reiterating the definitions of „continuing
unlawful activity‟, „organised crime‟, „organised crime syndicate‟ and
„abet‟ as specifically elaborated and clarified in Section 2 of MCOCA. The
Constitutional validity of the definitions as existing under Sections 2(1)(d),
(e) and (f) of MCOCA have been upheld as would be evident from State of
Maharashtra v. Bharat Shantilal Shah and Others; (2008) 13 SCC 5,
wherein it has been held that there is no vagueness therein and these do not
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 18 of 32
18:53:52
suffer from vice of class legislation and are not violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
46. In context of any such person, who has been chargesheeted for
committing an offence of organised crime, the prosecution is required to
first show the existence of continuous unlawful activity i.e. i) he is engaged
in an activity which is prohibited by law ii) such activity is in relation to a
cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more
iii) such activity is undertaken by any such person, individually or jointly or
as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate
and iv) there are more than one chargesheet filed before a Competent Court
within the preceding period of ten years in which cognizance has been taken.
47. The abovesaid crucial pre-requisite of there being more than one
chargesheet in the preceding ten years is not to be taken in context of an
individual only. It has to relate to the activity of the concerned organised
crime syndicate. Thus, the role of any such individual, who has been sent up
to face trial, has to be examined from a broader and wider angle. The
determining and governing aspect would be whether activity is „as a loner
with no nexus to syndicate‟ or „as member or on behalf of such syndicate‟.
Therefore, the requirement of the law of there being more than one previous
chargesheet cannot be limited against the individual member, named therein.
Rather, it has to be understood from the perspective of activities of
syndicate. It, therefore, would be of no substantial consequence even if
appellant is not specifically named in the previous chargesheet(s). His
nexus, in whatever capacity, with the organized crime syndicate would be
enough. Reference, on this score, be made to observations made by Hon‟ble
Bombay High Court in Sachin Bansilal (supra) which read as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 19 of 32
18:53:52
“38. Thus, according to us and in our humble opinion and after giving our
earnest consideration, the expression „member‟ as has been termed in
Section 2(1)(d) of the MCOC Act can be interpreted and defined as, a
person who participates in the crime either actively or passively or a person
who facilitates the commission of the crime committed by the organized
crime syndicate or on behalf of the organized crime syndicate,
automatically becomes the member of the said crime syndicate which
commits the offence or on whose behalf the offence in question is committed,
as contemplated under Sec. 2(1)(d), 2(1)(e), Section 3 and other provisions
of the MCOC Act.
39. The said intention of the legislature can further be gathered from the
expression which is used in sub section (2) of Section 3 of the MCOC Act
i.e. “any act preparatory to organised crime” has direct bearing with the
expression „member‟ which appears in Section 2(1)(d) of the MCOC Act
and therefore taking into consideration the intention of the legislature,
widest possible meaning has to be given to the expression „member‟ as is
appearing in Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(e), Section 3 and other provisions of
the MCOC Act”
48. In said judgement, it is observed that it is settled position of law that
singular unlawful activity would attract the provisions of ordinary law and if
it is the continuing one, and to wit, third offence of specified type which
fulfils the requirement of the provisions of the MCOCA, it becomes
organized crime to be registered as an offence under the MCOCA. There
cannot be any difference on opinion about said proposition and in a given
case, if prosecution is unable to show any nexus, the previous chargesheets
may not be of any relevance. Therefore, the principle needs to be applied
after analyzing and marshalling the facts.
49. The requirement of law is not „individual-centric‟ but is „syndicate-
centric‟ and the prosecution is, thus, fully justified in relying upon Kavitha
Lankesh (supra) where it has been, categorically, held that the requirement
of more than one chargesheets is in reference to the “continuing unlawful
activities” of the organised crime syndicate and not qua individual member
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 20 of 32
18:53:52
thereof. Zakir Abdul Mirajkar (supra) also reiterates the same and, therefore,
if there is a clear-cut nexus and the previous chargesheets are in relation to
the unlawful activities carried out by the same syndicate, any such
individual cannot raise grievance that since he has not been specifically
named in the previous chargesheet, the pre-condition is not met.
Participation of any such individual even as facilitator or abettor, when the
activities are carried out as member thereof, is sufficient for invocation of
MCOCA.
50. There cannot be, therefore, any qualm with respect to crucial
prerequisite and pre-conditions in invocation of offence under MCOCA. The
definitions are already amply clear and there is no scope for any discussion
or debate particularly when the constitutionality of the relevant definitions
has already been upheld.
51. Undoubtedly, continuing of unlawful activity, in itself, would not
constitute an offence.
52. It is only one of the essential pre-requisites for invocation of
MCOCA.
53. Substantive offences under MCOCA are offence of organized crime
and offence for possessing unaccountable wealth. These are provided under
Sections 3 and 4, respectively of the MCOCA.
54. The offence of organized crime has been defined under Section
2(1)(e) of MCOCA, which makes it clear that such offence would come into
existence when there is any continuing unlawful activity, coupled with use
of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion or other
unlawful means with objective of gaining pecuniary benefit. Thus,
continuing unlawful activity, simpliciter, would not be enough. Evidently,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 21 of 32
18:53:52
organized crime, in itself, is a substantive offence and, therefore, it will not
be appropriate to contend that any FIR registered only for commission of
offences under Sections 3 & 4 of MCOCA without there being any other
substantive offence, is impermissible in law. The observations in Darasing
(supra) were in an appeal where the accused had already been held guilty by
the learned Trial Court. While acquitting him, Hon‟ble Bombay High Court
observed that he could not have been convicted and sentenced for offences
under MCOCA in the absence of any substantive crime so as to constitute an
organized crime. In the aforesaid case, quite clearly, the other important
ingredients of offence of organized crime were found to be missing and,
therefore, the case, eventually, resulted in acquittal. Without doubt, there is
no proposition of law that if a person is charge-sheeted only for the
substantive offences under MCOCA, he cannot be convicted at all. Reason
is obvious – offences prescribed under MCOCA are substantive offences, in
themselves.
55. Nonetheless, it is core duty of the prosecution to bring on record clear
material suggesting not only the continuing unlawful activity but other
essential ingredients of said substantive offence of organized crime. Same is
true for offence related to possession of unaccountable wealth.
56. It will be also apposite to mention here that several precedents relied
upon by the appellant are where the concerned accused had been held guilty.
Obviously, findings, in those cases, had been given after comprehensive trial
and after scrutiny of the testimony of the witnesses, whereas in the case in
hand, no automatic advantage can be dug out from such precedents as the
trial has yet not begun. Prafulla Uddhav (supra) deals with a situation where
accused was held guilty after comprehensive trial, albeit, was acquitted in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 22 of 32
18:53:52
appeal. The fact-situation in said case was different as would be evident
from observations appearing in para 63 which read as under:-
“To sum up, in these cases, conviction of the appellants is based upon only
filing of chargesheets in the past. There is no overt act or omission, which
would amount to continuation of unlawful activity carried out by use of
force for the purpose of pecuniary gain, with which the appellants are
charged. The only overt acts attributed to and only to, the gang leaders, is
possession of arms at their houses, when they were in custody, and after
offences were registered under MCOCA. For these offences the learned
Judge, Special Court has acquitted them. Crime Nos. 37 and 38 of 2001 in
which MCOCA was sought to be applied, ended up in filing charge-sheets
without applying MCOCA and eventual acquittal of the accused therein.
This leaves a big question mark or rather question marks, not only about
application of mind while granting approval and sanction under Section 23,
but also about mindlessness in pursuing the whole matter. Conviction of the
appellants cannot therefore be sustained.”
57. In Madan S/o. Ramkisan Gangwani (supra) also, the accused had
been held guilty and convicted. In appeal, it was, inter alia, contended that
previous charge sheets, unrelated to offences for pecuniary or other gain,
were not relevant and that evidence in respect of previous charge sheets
may, at worst, prove involvement in continuing unlawful activity, but not
organised crime. Such contention was upheld by Hon‟ble Bombay High
Court as it noted that the evidence tendered did not suggest commission of
offence of organised crime. It also observed that what was made punishable
under Section 3 is “organised crime” and not “continuing unlawful activity.
There cannot be any qualm with the above proposition.
58. There is also no requirement in law that once approval is granted
under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA, the relevant Sections of MCOCA need
to be added in some existing FIR only. There is no question of there being
any kind of double jeopardy when a separate FIR is registered.
59. Investigating Agency has both the options, open and available to it.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 23 of 32
18:53:52
60. It is better left to them to decide as to which to choose – whether after
seeking requisite approval the penal offences of MCOCA be incorporated in
the pending FIR or whether to record a fresh FIR.
61. Merely because Investigating Agency chooses to record fresh FIR
would not, ipso facto, amount to double jeopardy.
62. As noted above, any such offence under MCOCA comes into
existence, primarily, because of the pending matters and continuing
unlawful activity but it, in itself, would not mean that registration of fresh
FIR would amount to double jeopardy. Reference be made to Sachin
Bansilal Ghaiwal (supra) wherein Hon‟ble Bombay High Court made
reference to availability of such two options in Para-19. It reads as under: –
“It is the settled position of law that the singular unlawful activity would
attract the provisions of ordinary law and if it is the continuing one, and
to wit, third offence of specified type which fulfills the requirement of the
provisions of the MCOC Act, it becomes organized crime to be registered
as an offence under the MCOC Act. In such situation there are two
options available to the prosecution/Investigating Agency, that is, either
they can separately record the information about the commission of an
offence of organized crime after successive unlawful activity of the
specified type have been committed, for and on behalf of the organized
syndicate, which has been done in the present case, or invoke the
provisions of the said enactment to the unlawful activity already reported
which is the successive in point of time that is to say the provisions of
the MCOC Act can be invoked or applied to an existing CR/FIR. …….”
63. The approval given under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA clearly
records that there are sufficient grounds that Kapil Sangwan @ Nandu is the
mastermind in planning and execution of the nefarious activities of
syndicate in question. It also records that he is not only depending upon his
old accomplices but also recruiting new members by diverting their minds
towards criminal activities. It also took note of the four previous FIRs which
had been registered against Kapil Sangwan @ Nandu and/or his accomplices
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 24 of 32
18:53:52
in which the cognizance had already been taken. It was in that context that
the approval was granted.
64. FIR, in hand, has been registered on the basis of the abovesaid
approval and it is no longer res integra that FIR is not the encyclopedia of
the entire prosecution story.
65. It is just the beginning of the investigation.
66. Moreover, the FIR is always registered in context of offence and
during investigation, the police can reach out to the concerned offenders.
Merely, because the name of the offender is not mentioned in the FIR would
not mean anything substantial. Even in Zakir Abdul Mirajka (supra),
Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed that an order of approval under
Section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA need not name every accused person at the
outset. It observed that often limited information is available to the
Investigating Agency at the time of recording information about the
commission of an offence and the involvement of others may come to light,
during the course of the investigation only. It observed that the very purpose
of investigation is to determine whether a crime has been committed and if
yes, to shed light on the details of the crime, including the perpetrators
thereof. It also observed that in context of organized crime syndicate in
particular, such syndicate may consist of scores of persons involved in
unlawful activities in different capacities and held that Section 23(1)(a) of
MCOCA speaks about recording information about the commission of
offence of organized crime, and not of recording information about the
offender(s). Moreover, the fact whether the material considered by the
Competent Authority was adequate or not and whether there is due
application of mind or not can be answered appropriately during the trial
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 25 of 32
18:53:52
only. In Digvijay Saroha (supra), this Court has observed that at the stage of
consideration of bail, the Court is not required to go into the facts in detail
and to give a finding that sanction is in accordance with law or not, while
also supplementing that such exercise is required to be undertaken during
the trial only. Reference be also made to Vinod G. Asrani (supra), Abhishek
(supra), Farman Imran Shah @ Karu Vs. State of Maharashtra47 and Anil
Sadashiv Nanduskar Vs. State of Maharashtra48.
67. Of course, appellant proclaims that he, himself, is also a victim of
threats emanating from same gangster Kapil Sangwan. He contends that in
view of such threats, he had approached the police and was, in fact, given
protection and now all of a sudden, for totally inexplicable reasons and on
account of some political vendetta, such a vital fact has been brushed aside
and he has been, instead, projected as close associate of Kapil Sangwan.
Merely because the appellant had lodged complaints against Kapil Sangwan
in past, the material collected by the Investigating Agency cannot be negated
and annulled, particularly when the conversation between him and Kapil
Sangwan demonstrates an active criminal nexus between the two. Whether
these complaints are genuine or not; or whether these are clever ploy to
create a false illusion; or whether the threats existed but of late, there is tacit
association between them would become clearer only during the trial. These
complaints, at this juncture, would not absolve him, also keeping in mind the
other incriminating material. Of course, the appellant is a political figure but
the plea of political vendetta is, merely, in the air and completely
unsubstantiated.
47
(2014) SCC OnLine Bom 408
48
(2007) SCC OnLine Bom 1702
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 26 of 32
18:53:52
68. The evidence matrix, as against the appellant herein, has already been
extracted. However, in order to assess whether invocation of MCOCA is
justified and whether the threshold parameters are met or not, this Court has
gone through the allegations appearing in the charge-sheet, very carefully.
69. In the first supplementary charge-sheet, it was mentioned that after
obtaining permission for interrogation from the designated court, Naresh
Balyan was interrogated as during the relevant time, he was in custody in
other case. Such interrogation indicated that he was instrumental in
facilitated money to the organized crime syndicate in question. Investigation
qua him remained underway and, therefore, he was not immediately charge-
sheeted. After comprehensive investigation, he was, eventually, charge-
sheeted as would be manifest from the second supplementary charge-sheet.
70. Prosecution relied upon confessional statements of Rohit @ Anna and
Sachin Chhikara who, besides admitting their own involvement, revealed
about the complicity of appellant in the syndicate. Confessional statements
have been placed on record and these do indicate a clear-cut nexus among
all the members of the syndicate and these confessional statements go on to
show that Nandu (Kapil Sangwan) had told them that he was having good
contact with MLA Naresh Balyan, who would help them in everything,
including extortion, money-settlement and investing money on their behalf.
These confessional statements were recorded by the concerned DCP of
Special Cell on 02.12.2024 and 03.12.2024. On 03.12.2024 itself, they both
were produced before the Court of learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate in compliance of Section 18(5) of MCOCA and inquiry was
made by the Court as per Section 18(6) MCOCA. During such proceedings,
learned Trial Court apprised both of them, separately and individually, that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 27 of 32
18:53:52
confessional statements made by them had been received. These were also
read over to them and they were asked whether they wanted to make any
statement or not. They, in response, merely claimed that they were not aware
as to what was mentioned in their confessional statements. They, at the same
time, claimed that there was no use of force “mere sath koi jor jabardasti
nahi hui thi”. Of course, they pleaded their ignorance about such statements
but fact remains that they never claimed that whatever had been read out to
them, purported to be their confessional statements, was false and wrong. Be
that as it may, fact remains that factum of retraction can be appropriately
answered during the trial only and at this stage when the Court is merely
considering bail plea, such confessional statements cannot be, outrightly,
discarded. Reference be made to Praveen Venkatesh Takalki (supra) and
Kamlesh Kothari (supra).
71. Investigation also reveals that appellant has been continuously
facilitating members of the crime syndicate headed by Kapil Sangwan in
commission of organized crime; and the appellant, in particular, facilitated
his co-accused Rohit @ Anna, member of same syndicate in the acts of
extortion and murder. All such instances were in the knowledge of police as
these resulted in registration of FIR No. 60/2023, PS Mohan Garden, FIR
No. 191/2023, PS Mohan Garden and FIR No. 265/2023, PS Binda Pur. FIR
No. 191/2023 was registered on the basis of complaint of Mr. Gurcharan
Singh who had received threats from Kapil Sangwan and when said Mr.
Gurcharan Singh made a supplementary statement on 30.11.2024, he
revealed that after he had received ransom call from Kapil Sangwan, he had
a conversion with appellant who told him (Gurcharan Singh) that Nandu was
his brother and if he wanted to settle anything with him, he may be apprised
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 28 of 32
18:53:52
as Nandu would never refuse his request and would also reduce ransom-
amount.
72. The chargesheet makes reference to various previous incidents which
resulted in registration of around 17 FIRs and as per the case of prosecution,
these relate to the members of same syndicate headed by Kapil Sangwan. As
noted above, the appellant is also alleged to be a key member of the same
syndicate. These FIRs have clear relevance and go on to constitute vital
foundational material; and validate continuity of the criminal activity of the
syndicate in an organized manner. The contention of the appellant that the
FIR in question is, merely, a reiteration and repetition of the previous FIRs
and that there is no material showing any continuance of unlawful activity or
any act suggesting commission of offence under MCOCA, is liable to be
rejected.
73. Statement of appellant Naresh Balyan was also recorded in which he
admitted his complicity.
74. During course of the investigation, audio-video recording, which had
gone viral on social media platform which, purportedly, captured a
telephonic conversation between appellant and Kapil Sangwan, was taken
into possession and was meticulously examined. This Court does not have to
evaluate the aforesaid conversation, threadbare. Suffice it to say that it
divulges strong and intense nexus between appellant and other caller
(purported to be Kapil Sangwan @ Nandu). Such conversation goes on to
suggest that they were, jointly, engaged in threatening local businessmen
and extorting money in an organized manner. The specimen voice sample of
appellant was obtained at CFSL, Lodhi Colony with due permission from
the designated court and the forensic report raises accusing finger towards
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 29 of 32
18:53:52
appellant as his specimen voice matched with the viral audio-voice sample.
Admittedly, there is not complete clarity with respect to the identity of the
caller at the other end but such fact, ipso facto, would not mean anything
substantial, particularly, in light of the other incriminating material.
Moreover, the Court is also conscious of the fact that such caller is
syndicate-Head, who is absconding and still at large.
75. Statements of protected witnesses are also, very clearly, suggesting
complicity of the appellant as they have revealed about active involvement
of appellant with the organized crime syndicate headed by Nandu, for
pecuniary and other undue advantage.
76. During course of investigation, it also stood revealed that appellant,
along with his absconding associates, was involved in commission of
organized crime with intent to create disputes over the bonafide properties of
witnesses. It was with the objective of obtaining pecuniary gain and securing
undue economic or other advantages, by involving syndicate-head Kapil
Sangwan@ Nandu, to issue life-threats to the bonafide owners of such
properties. They are stated to be witnesses in the present case. Naresh
Balyan used to get Agreements to Sell executed in the name of co-accused
Umed Singh. After execution of such agreements, Naresh Balyan used to
deliberately project such properties as “disputed” and then to involve Kapil
Sangwan @ Nandu to threaten them, thereby compelling them to sell their
properties at a price much lower than the amount mentioned in the original
agreement(s). Several such properties have already been identified which
have been described in the chargesheet.
77. The mobile numbers, which the appellant had been using, were
scrutinized and it came to fore that some such numbers were showing
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 30 of 32
18:53:52
internet calls, connected with servers of United Kingdom, where the Head of
Syndicate is stationed and operating his syndicate. Internet Protocol Detail
Records (IPDRs) have been extensively evaluated and the analysis report is
given in the chargesheet.
78. Thus, a broad assessment of the material as collected by Investigating
Agency would lay bare that there is discernible nexus between appellant and
other members of syndicate as well as head of such syndicate. The element
of “continuing unlawful activity” is also, palpably present and since such
activity is also by use of threat and intimidation with objective to gain
pecuniary advantage, it cannot be said that invocation of MCOCA was
unjustifiable.
79. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant contends that the pre-trial
custody is high and since charges have yet not been framed, there is
violation of his fundamental right to have a speedy trial. Indubitably, there is
no scope of any dispute or debate with respect to the invaluable right of
having a speedy trial as enshrined and recognized under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India but fact remains that in such type of sensitive and
serious matters where stringent provisions of MCOCA are invoked, mere
long incarceration cannot be taken as governing and decisive factor for grant
of bail. MCOCA is a special statute, intended to deal with organized crime
syndicate operating through continuing unlawful activities over a period of
time. The Investigation in such type of matters is a mammoth task. The
Syndicate-Head has absconded and there is already a request made by the
prosecution to the learned Trial Court to conduct trial in absentia qua such
absconding accused. The arguments on charge are being advanced and this
Court expects that the learned Trial Court shall make best endeavour to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 31 of 32
18:53:52
proceed further with the matter, as expeditiously as possible.
80. A careful perusal of the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 would not
reveal any illegality, necessitating any interference. Learned Trial Court
observed that there were as many as 17 FIRs lodged against the syndicate,
few of those just prior to approval, and all these FIRs from 2021 onwards till
obtaining of approval in August 2024, if reviewed, would not suggest that
there was lack of any continuous unlawful activity. It also made reference to
John D‟Souza (supra) and held that invocation of MCOCA based on the
continuous unlawful activities under the third FIR was, thus, justifiable. It
also rightly observed that there was no case of double jeopardy or infraction
of Article 20 of Constitution of India for the simple reason that in the earlier
FIRs, MCOCA had not been invoked. It also made reference to statutory
presumption provided under MCOCA. Presumption is, though, rebuttable
but such rebuttal can take place during the trial only.
81. In view of foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any merit in
the appeal and, resultantly, while dismissing the same, the plea for grant of
bail stands turned down.
82. Needless to emphasis, the observations made hereinabove are
tentative in nature and would not prejudice the mind of the learned Trial
Court at the stage of arguments of charge or at any subsequent stage.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
AUGUST 3, 2026/st/dr/sw/sa
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.08.2026 CRL.A. 1676/2025, Page 32 of 32
18:53:52
