This is what happened as written by Valmiki

Sugreeva challenged vali to a combat for the second time. Before going Tara, wife of
Vali stopped him and said

Think before you go. Theres soemthing fishy when Sugreeva came for the second
time as he can not withstand you once. I have enquired that Rama, son of
Dasharatha came and made friends with Sugreeva. Rama is the upholder of
Dharma. Still nothing happened that could not be rectified. Bring Sugreeva back
and give him his wife. He still has respect for you. And you cannot find a better
relative than Sugreeva in the whole world.

But vali refuses to do so and goes to fight sugreeva. As vali is aware of Rama, he
starts fighting with sugreeva as a moving top so that even if somebody hits from
hideout, he has a chance to escape. The strength of Vali's body is such that an arrow
which can pierce through seven "sAla" trees in one hit can only pierce vali's body.
But Rama released his arrow and hit Vali.

Though vali fell, his brilliance did not diminish even a bit. Rama then ran to vAli
with the respect of approaching a brave person. Indra's necklace gave more
brilliance to vali(this was the reference given by valmiki to Indra's necklace). Here
vali asks rAma the following questions.

1) You are such a good looking prince. You kill me while

I am in a dual combat not facing you.
2) They say Rama is a virtuous, all knowing, and acts
timely. Kshatriyas like you are supposed to keep the
dharma. You have read vedas and know what is true and
what is not. I thought you will not attempt to kill me
while I am in a combat with Sugreeva.
3) I have not known that you will become the bearer of
unrighteousness and your soul is put to death.
4) I am not guilty as I have never committed any sin in
your land, nor against you. what made you hit me when I
am in a combat with other?
5) You are born in Raghu family which is well known for
its reputation in keeping Dharma. And you being the son
of such high souled Dasharatha, how could you do such
a deed?
. 6) We are forest dwellers. And you are nAgarik. how
could you resot to such unethical deed?
7) People do misdeeds for territory, gold etc. What will
you gain in killing me?
8) Five kinds of animals are edible for brahmanas and
kshatriyas. I dont come under that category. My skin, my
bones, hair etc are not suitable for any sacrifice. Then
why did you kill me?
9) I am killed by an elephant called Rama that snapped
off its girdle-cord called tradition, that infringed the
conventions of righteous people, and that discarded the
goad called virtue
10) Had you been in combat with me by now you would
have seen the death.
11) If you had did this misdeed that Sugreeva will help you in searching seetha, I
could have captured rAvana and brought him to you
For detail you can read this from original site
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/kishkindha/sarga17/kishkindha_17_frame.html
Now let go how Lord Rama replied all his queries
For these questions Rama answers Vali in the most
convincing way. The answers are
1) You criticize me with all these allegations. How
childish are you in doing so.
2) Dharma, Artha, kama, Samaya, Loka all these
matter when taking the right decision. You have no
knowledge of any of the above How do you criticize
me?
3) You are a monkey by nature. You have kept other
monkeys like you around and think whatever you do
is right. If you dont know dharma, go the elders, read
scriptures. Then you will knwo what dharma is.
4) The earth with all the mountains, forests is all
under the jurisdiction of the Raghus. And as a person
born in that dynasty its my duty to keep the dharma
in this land. And we have to punish those who do a
wrong deed.
5) A younger brother, a desciple, and son all have the
same position.
6) Realise this reason by which I have eliminated you.
you misbehaved with your brother's wife, forsaking
the perpetual tradition
7) Doing a misdeed with a daughter, sister or wife of
the younger brother, is subject to death punishment
as told by scriptures
8) My association with Sugreeva is as good as that
with Lakshmana, if I take your help to get back
seetha, who will get back Sugreeva's wife?
9) Sinners who are punished by kings attain heaven,
their sin being washed off. Else the king will have to
bear the punishment of such sin. Similar punishment
was given by my ancestor Mandhaata before.
10) You are a monkey by birth. Kshatriyas hunt
animals by keeping abits, traps etc. There is no
mistake in killing an amimal like you from hideout.
Hunting is no face to face event.
11) I have killed you to uphold my family's tradition in
protecting Dharma.

Then Vali himself accepted Rama has done no sin.

We should accept one thing.

My Rama has done nothing wrong. My knowledge

might not be sufficient to judege what he has done.
But Rama has done nothing wrong.

Thus valmiki clears everything in his Ramayana

showing

"rAmO vigrahavAn dharmah"

W hy lor d didn’t fought lor d VALI

There is a reason for this. Rama is a kshatriya. Rama

knows dhanur veda. You might already know that
dhanur vidya is not like the bow and arrow skills of
robinhood. They have astra knowledge etc. But vali is
a vanara. Rules of a combat were quite rigid. One has
to specify his gothra and varna before he fights his
opponent. Vali is in no way suitable for such fight.
Rama has the responsibility of restoring sugreeva's
wife to him. So he has to order Vali. Vali is already
headstrong that he wont listen to anybody. So
according to kirata nyaya he had to set up a trap for
vali and kill him.

Furthermore, there is some explaination when lord

rama talk to Rama Here Rama asks agasthya muni,
Hanumaan is as strong as me. why did he not kill vali.
why did he wait for me to come and kill him? (as
hanuman is also a vanara) Agasthya muni answers
that, yes hanuman was capable of kiling vali but
because of the curse he had in his childhood, unless
someone reminds him of his energy he doesnt know
that. And Jambavaan reminded him while they were
at the ocean to search seetha. The next question is
why did Jambavan reminded him then and why not
before? The answer is that the courage of hanuman
is only to be used for Rama's purpose and for nobody
else.Vali could have misused hanuman power
To conquer both Ravana and indra and both Indra and
Ravana were far better people than vali and valiant.
ou think Shri Ram would have thought that Vali was
below his level as a warrior??.. I can not take this
argument He fought Ravana only with the Vanarsena.
He would not have thought about Vali's Gotra and
varna..For that matter, Ravana was a Danav..Sri Ram
is for everyone my friend..

There is a lot of logic to be understood in Ramayana

and every deed Rama did. I had my points very lucid.
First let me get this straight. When talking about
varna vyavastha a brahmin is noway greater than a
kshatriya or a vaisya and vice versa. So Rama
looking down at Vali is not the case. It was not apt for
Rama to fight Vali in a duel or combat as the rules
were very rigid for combat.Vali was not knowing
Dhanur veda and Ravena spared him because
Ravena could have killed him using’ any divine
weapon……..
When Rama fought Ravana, Ravana also knew
dhanurveda and fought with him. The nature of
'Maryada' (boundary) is shown by Rama throughout
the epic. For example he doesnt talk to Hanuman
when Hanuman arrives for the first time in front of
him as a brahmin, but asks lakshmana to talk with
hanuman.

Further the cause that half the power of the opponent

is captured by Vali because of the necklace given by
Indra is just a myth. Valmiki Ramayana has only
mention of the necklace that Vali was shining brightly
with that ornament. If that was the reason rama would
have said so.

. All our knowledge on the parallel facts of the

itihasas are based on the puranas, upanishads etc.
The eighteen puranas are accepted to be authentic by
elders out of many we know. Neither of them mention
this story that Vali has the boon to capture half the
capacity of his opponent.

There is not even a hint of such boon if you see

Ramayana. Rama assures Sugreeva that he will kill
Vali and save Sugreeva. Sugreeva mentions Vali's
strength. To demonstrate he is capable of killing Vali
Rama shoots an arrow through seven Sala trees in a
row and throws the skeleton of Dundubhi a long
distance with his toe. After killing Vali when Vali
questioned him about why Rama killed him from
behind Rama told him everything but did not mention
about Vali's boon at all.

Even demons like Maaricha and Akampana could see

Rama as an embodiment of Dharma ("Raamo
 vigrahavan Dharmah, Saadhu Satya Parakrama").

When Tara told Vali of her knowledge of Rama

helping Sugreev, Vali said that Rama is a Dharmatma
and he would not do anything that is wrong. Then
Tara asks Vali "How much Dharma do you know, to be
able to predict Rama's action? You only know
Dharma's "sthoola roopa" but Rama understand's
Dharma's "sookshma swaroopa" so we can never
understand how he will apply that Dharma.

So the killing of Vali and the manner of killing boils

down to punishing an animal of the jungle that had
gone wayward in its ways, breaking the balance of
nature. We who repeatedly keep voting corrupt and
dishonest people to power and can go blind to
injustices in front of our very eyes to our own people
can never know the real meaning of "Mr. Clean".
Now Vali could not have brought Sita Back Noway he could have defeated Indrajit
Atikaay
Let me come out of Valmiki Ramyana my personal opinion
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/kishkindha/sarga18/kishkindha_18_frame.html
Dushtah
nigraha sishta paripaalanam’ sinks in his mind and
wonders “You have to do something, This is very
important ………………
Let us analyse the scenario step by step. When Bali was wounded by
Shree Ram’s arrow he asked Shree Ram before dying, he didn’t offend
Him in any way in His country or His town. He didn’t humiliate Him in
any way, he had been ‘innocent’ and that he had not done any
‘Apraada’ (offence) to Shree Ram …. Just by applying logic found in this
defence of Bali, shall we say that had he not offended Shree Ram, if
not in Shree Ram’s place, but in his own place (Bali’s territory) and
humiliated Shree Ram in some way, could Shree Ram had given him
the end in the way as it was ? In order to understand the nuances, let
us remind ourselves that there was no going back on killing Bali as far as Shree
Ram was concerned. The moment He went around the fire and pledged to
Sugreev that he would kill Bali, Bali’s fate was sealed. So the issue
was not why He killed. The question whether Bali committed any offence
or not as to attract a death sentence from Shree Ram is irrelevant
(based on the pledge that Shree Ram gave to Sugreev). But that he
was killed in a particular fashion alone gets connected with some cause
, probably an offence to Shree Ram. As until long Bali was not in any way connected
with Him, the offence
must have taken place later. Since the killing was in an indirect mode
, the offence must also have been in an indirect mode. If we proceed
with this line of reasoning, we get ample evidence to show that Bali
had indeed offended Shree Ram in an indirect way. He seemed to have
come into grasp of this indirect offence gradually as he continued to
talk to Shree Ram. One can see a palpable shift in Bali’s tone from being
accusative to submissive thereby indicating that wisdom had dawned
on him slowly and lately. It starts with Bali’s talks on Raj-Dharma. As he
continued to speak of Raj-Dharma, Shree Ram’s commitment to ‘Dushtah
nigraha sishta paripaalanam’ sinks in his mind and wonders “You have to
do something, but You have done some other thing”. What is that some
thing and some other thing is again spelt by Bali himself. He thinks that because of
his not rising to the occasion, Shree Ram had
killed him unseen. He expresses this in his talk(that continues from the
above mentioned one).“ It is perfectly legitimate for Sugreev to aspire
for the throne after me. It is perfectly legitimate for him to kill me to
attain the throne. But Shree Ram, it is not legitimate on Your part to
hit me when I am fighting with another”, says Bali. “If you think it is
legitimate, tell me how”, says Bali before he collapses.
So the issue now centres around whether Shree Ram considered the
non-rising to the occasion of Bali as an offence. The answer is yes,
going by what Shree Ram says in the beginning and at the end of
his defence. Shree Ram replies that He had been perfectly Dharmic
in what He had done, by this does He points out to Bali that he had
failed to carry out the Dharma in his (Bali’s) land? Bali spoke of all
Raj-Dharma that included protecting the Dharma in one’s land and
punishing the offenders. Did he follow that Raj-Dharma? He knew that
Sita Ji had been abducted. He knew the one who had abducted her
was once defeated by him. He was more valiant than the abductor
and could have easily overpowered him if he had made an attempt.
Further the abduction was carried out in a land that belonged to him
and Sita Ji was carried across his kingdom. Sugreev had seen the
abduction.so Hanuman jee and BALI
since He was carrying the curse of Rishi Angvahak & was not aware of
His true potentials & probably was not in a position to challenge Ravan
couldn’t do much to help. But Bali could have stopped it, he in his capacity
as a king is supposed to stop crimes in his land and punish the offenders.
Bali had known that Sita Ji had been abducted and as a king must have
been well aware that she had been carried right across his land. But he
didn’t do anything about it, despite being powerful enough to stop it or
restore her. For whose command did Bali wait to execute Raj-Dharma ?
Or for that matter for whose command the bird, Jatayu waited to take
on Ravan? The sense of duty that a pakshi (bird) had, a monkey king didn’t
have.
The abduction of a married woman and the consequence of the same
are of serious dimensions for humans and no need to say that this applies
to the divine couple. That Bali had failed to contribute his might in stopping
it happen or restoring Sita Ji by his own volition seems to be the factor
being reminded by Shree Ram.