• Regulatory
• 2 min read

Delhi HC denies anticipatory bail to Nayan Raheja in enforcement directorate case

The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to real estate mogul Nayan Raheja, citing his lack of cooperation with the Enforcement Directorate. Raheja's failure to respond to multiple summonses has raised concerns, leading to the conclusion that custodial interrogation is essential for probing the serious allegations of money laundering linked to substantial amounts from homebuyers, highlighting persistent issues in the business sector's ethical conduct.

“Based on the material on record, it cannot be said that the applicant is not guilty of the offence of money laundering and further that the applicant would not be involved in the said activity upon grant of bail. The investigation is still ongoing and the role of the applicant is being investigated,” Justice Amit Bansal said, while listing reasons for declining relief to him.

The court held that Raheja had failed to satisfy the twin conditions for bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). It also noted that his repeated failure to appear before ED weighed against granting relief.

“Despite undertakings given to the court, the applicant has failed to join and cooperate in the investigation when he was summoned by the Investigating Agency. This conduct of the applicant would also disentitle him from the grant of anticipatory bail,” the court observed, adding that the reasons cited by him for not appearing before the agency were unjustified.

The high court noted that Raheja had not appeared before ED since April 2026, when an iPad allegedly containing incriminating material was seized from his wife’s residence.

According to the court, forensic analysis of the device revealed details relating to project costs, expenses and unsold inventory of RDL projects, indicating that Raheja was involved in the company’s affairs despite not holding any formal position.

The anticipatory bail plea was filed in connection with an ED case registered in March 2022. The court noted that the agency had issued nine summonses to Raheja between April and Aug 2026. While he responded to some of them, citing his absence from the city or seeking permission to appear through video conferencing, he did not join the investigation.

Referring to the settled legal position, the court observed that a person summoned under Section 50 of the PMLA is required to appear in person. It also noted that an investigating agency may summon a person again if fresh facts emerge during the probe.

ED opposed the bail plea, alleging that Rs 1,601.6 crore received from homebuyers had been diverted by Raheja’s company. The agency maintained that custodial interrogation was necessary to confront him with the material collected during the investigation and trace the ultimate utilisation of the alleged proceeds of crime.