Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Nayan N Raheja in Money-Laundering Case Linked to Homebuyers’ Complaints
The Saket District Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Nayan N Raheja, former director of Raheja Developers Ltd. (RDL), in a money-laundering investigation connected with allegations that homebuyers were not delivered residential and commercial units within the agreed timelines. Special Judge (PMLA) Sachin Jain rejected the plea in an order dated September 19, 2026.
The court placed significant emphasis on Raheja’s alleged lack of cooperation with the Enforcement Directorate (ED). According to the order, seven summonses were served on him, but he appeared before the ED’s Gurugram Zonal Office on only two occasions and did not appear on five other occasions, citing various reasons.
The court held that the fact that Raheja was not named in the FIRs forming the basis of the Enforcement Case Information Report, or had not been charge-sheeted in the underlying offences, did not automatically absolve him from proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court said he would have to prima facie demonstrate that he had not dealt with proceeds of crime in a manner covered by Section 3 of the PMLA.
The court also considered the twin conditions contained in Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA. It found that Raheja had not established reasonable grounds at the anticipatory-bail stage for believing that he was not guilty of the alleged money-laundering offence.
The ED argued that Raheja had previously given an undertaking before the Delhi High Court on July 30, 2026, agreeing to fully cooperate with the agency’s investigation. The prosecution relied on his subsequent attendance record to argue that he had not complied with that undertaking.
The money-laundering investigation originates from several FIRs registered in Delhi and Gurugram. According to the ED’s case, RDL collected substantial amounts from customers for residential and commercial projects including Raheja Revanta, Raheja Shilas, Raheja Trinity, Raheja Oma, Raheja Mall, Raheja Aranya, Raheja Atharva and Vedanta, but the units were allegedly not delivered within the periods specified in the builder-buyer agreements.
The agency has alleged that funds collected from homebuyers were diverted for purposes other than construction. During its PMLA investigation, the ED claimed to have found material indicating that Raheja was looking after the affairs of RDL or its subsidiary companies in which funds received from homebuyers were allegedly diverted. These remain allegations in an ongoing investigation, not findings of guilt.
Raheja’s lawyers disputed the allegations. They argued that he had not been charge-sheeted in the predicate offences and therefore no offence under Section 3 of the PMLA was made out against him. They also argued that no proceeds of crime were attributable to him and that he was not involved in RDL’s day-to-day management or decision-making.
His counsel further submitted that Raheja served as a director of RDL during two limited periods—from January 15, 2003, to January 12, 2008, and again from August 16, 2010, to November 26, 2010. The defence also stated that he holds 0.81% of the company’s shares and received remuneration for advising on architectural drawings.
The court nevertheless concluded that his conduct during the investigation weighed against granting anticipatory bail. It observed that such protection is ordinarily considered in exceptional circumstances and that failure to appear and cooperate with investigators was relevant to the request for pre-arrest protection.
The dismissal of the anticipatory-bail application does not amount to a finding that Raheja is guilty of money laundering. The underlying allegations remain subject to investigation and the applicable criminal proceedings. The immediate ruling concerns whether he should receive protection from arrest while the PMLA investigation proceeds.
The order also highlights the importance courts may attach to an accused’s cooperation with an ED investigation when considering anticipatory bail under the PMLA, particularly where the agency alleges that financial transactions involving proceeds of crime require further investigation.
