The Saket District Court has rejected Nayan N Raheja’s anticipatory bail application in an Enforcement Directorate money laundering case linked to allegations involving Raheja Developers Ltd projects. The court noted that Raheja appeared before the ED on two of seven occasions when he was summoned during the investigation. The defence argued that he had not been involved in the company’s management and had not dealt with alleged proceeds of crime. The court held that the statutory conditions for anticipatory bail under the PMLA were not satisfied.
Nayan N Raheja Denied Anticipatory Bail in Money Laundering Case
Nayan N Raheja’s application for anticipatory bail in an Enforcement Directorate money laundering case of non-delivery of residential and commercial units has been rejected by the Saket District Court.
In a major legal turn, the Saket District Court has rejected an anticipatory bail plea of Nayan N Raheja in the money laundering case, citing his conduct during the investigation.
Special Judge (PMLA) Sachin Jain rejected the application after hearing the Enforcement Directorate’s allegations and Raheja’s repeated failure to appear before the Investigating Officer when summoned.
The Enforcement Directorate has registered a money laundering case based on several FIRs filed in Delhi and Gurugram concerning allegations against Raheja Developers Ltd and various real estate projects.
The ED claimed the homebuyers had paid money for residential flats and commercial spaces as per the builder-buyer agreements to be delivered within the stipulated periods.
The agency said the money collected from consumers was diverted elsewhere other than for project construction, and several of the promised units were not handed over after the expiry of the agreed possession periods.
Court Cites Cooperation With ED Investigation
The court noted that Raheja had appeared before the Gurugram Zonal Office on only two of the seven occasions when he was served summons during the probe.
He failed to personally appear and cooperate with investigators on five occasions, the order said, citing different reasons for his non-appearance.
The court also noted the ED submission that Raheja had earlier given an undertaking before the Delhi High Court to fully cooperate with its investigation.
Special Public Prosecutor for ED Anand Kirti relied on the undertaking, which was recorded in an order of the Delhi High Court dated July 30, 2026.
The court said that the fact that a person is not named in an FIR or, even if named, is not charge-sheeted later, does not automatically absolve him from the PMLA proceedings.
It said that an applicant for anticipatory bail has to prima facie show that at least he/she has not dealt with proceeds of crime in a manner covered under Section 3 of PMLA.
The court further noted that the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were not fulfilled in the application of Raheja.
Nayan N Raheja’s Role Disputed by Defence
Raheja’s counsel had submitted that no money laundering offence can be made out under Section 3 of PMLA as he has not been charge-sheeted in the predicate offences.
The senior counsel also submitted that the twin conditions under the statute for grant of bail were satisfied; as per the defence arguments, no proceeds of crime could be attributed to Raheja.
The defence said Raheja was never involved in the day-to-day management or decision-making of Raheja Developers Ltd, in which he was a director for some time.
Court records cited by the defence said Raheja was a director from January 15, 2003 to January 12, 2008 and again from August 16, 2010 to November 26, 2010.
The defence further submitted that after that, Raheja did not hold any management position but remained a shareholder with a 0.81% stake in RDL.
It further said that Raheja was paid by Raheja Developers Ltd for advisory services on architectural drawings, not for involvement in the company’s management.
Also Read: ED Charges EaseMyTrip Co-Founder Nishant Pitti in Mahadev Case
ED Links Investigation to Multiple Raheja Projects
However, the ED has claimed that there was enough material to show that Raheja was looking after the affairs of the parent company Raheja Developers Ltd.
The agency further alleged that Raheja was a director of subsidiary companies wherein funds received from homebuyers were allegedly diverted for purposes other than construction.
The FIRs are part of the Enforcement Case Information Report and relate to projects such as Raheja Revanta, Raheja Shilas, Raheja Trinity, Raheja Oma and Raheja Mall.
Raheja Aranya, Raheja Atharva and Vedanta are also among them, the course of proceedings submissions said.
The allegations are related to monies collected from customers for residential and commercial developments, the alleged diversion of monies, and failure to deliver promised units.
Finally, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Raheja and held that, on the facts and law, the circumstances of the case did not warrant the grant of the protection sought.
Court Order Sets Out Next Legal Stage
In the September 19 order, the court had specifically mentioned Raheja’s alleged non-appearance and non-cooperation with the probe as a factor militating against anticipatory bail.
The court also noted that in such a case, anticipatory bail would normally require special reasons, such as a prima facie case of false implication to harass, for grant of bail.
This ruling is not in itself a finding of guilt on the money laundering allegations, which are still subject to investigation and further judicial processes.
The case is still being investigated under the PMLA and the ED is continuing its probe into the alleged handling of homebuyer funds.
Sprouts News will continue to distinguish allegations by investigating authorities, defence submissions and findings formally recorded by courts for readers following the matter.
The proceedings also highlight the legal importance of co-operation with investigative agencies when courts are considering applications for protection from arrest under money laundering law.
