Delhi HC Rejects Nayan Raheja Bail in Money Laundering Case
The Delhi High Court dismissed businessman Nayan N Raheja's anticipatory bail plea, citing non-cooperation with the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering probe.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday dealt a significant blow to real estate businessman Nayan N Raheja by dismissing his plea for anticipatory bail. The court's decision comes amid an ongoing investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) into alleged money laundering involving the diversion of massive sums of money.
Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the matter, observed that Raheja failed to satisfy the stringent twin conditions required under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). A primary factor in the court's decision was the businessman's perceived lack of cooperation with the central investigating agency.
Failure to Cooperate with ED
The court highlighted that despite being issued nine summons between April and August 2026, Raheja had failed to appear before the ED in person. While the businessman had provided various reasons for his absence—such as being out of station or requesting video conferencing—the court found these justifications insufficient.
The bench noted a troubling pattern of conduct, specifically pointing out that Raheja had not appeared before the agency since the seizure of an iPad in April 2026. According to the ED, this device is crucial as it contains project-wise details regarding costs, expenses, and unsold inventory of Raheja Development Limited (RDL).
Furthermore, the court expressed concern over Raheja's failure to honor previous commitments. "The court also took note of an undertaking given by Raheja in a separate writ petition that he would fully cooperate with the investigation," the order stated, noting that he still failed to respond to subsequent summons in August 2026.
The Allegations: ₹1,601 Crore Diversion
The core of the ED's investigation involves the alleged systematic diversion of funds. The agency claims that approximately ₹1,601.63 crore was diverted from funds originally collected from homebuyers. The ED argued that Raheja was deeply involved in the affairs of RDL and its associated entities and that custodial interrogation is essential to trace the ultimate destination of these alleged proceeds of crime.
In response to these heavy allegations, Raheja's legal team contended that the funds collected by RDL were utilized for legitimate business purposes. They also challenged the ED's ability to quantify the proceeds of crime beyond the amounts mentioned in the chargesheets of the predicate offences.
Court's Stand on PMLA and Investigation
The High Court rejected the argument regarding the quantification of crime, clarifying that money laundering under the PMLA is a standalone offence. The court emphasized that the ED's investigation is distinct and separate from the investigation into the underlying scheduled offences.
Addressing the defense's attempt to argue the merits of the case, the court maintained that a bail hearing is not the stage for a "mini-trial." The judge noted that it was not necessary to determine at this stage whether the transactions were legitimate business transfers or illegal diversions, as these matters remain under active investigation.
The court reiterated legal precedents stating that a person summoned under Section 50 of the PMLA is required to appear in person, and an investigating agency maintains the right to summon an individual again if new facts emerge.