Nayan N Raheja moves Delhi HC for anticipatory bail, ED opposes plea
Former Raheja Developer Director Nayan N Raheja moves Delhi HC for anticipatory bail as ED alleges non-cooperation in money laundering case.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday heard arguments regarding the anticipatory bail plea of Nayan N Raheja, the former Director of Raheja Developer Ltd. (RDL), in an ongoing money laundering investigation. The plea comes after the Saket District Court rejected his application for anticipatory bail on September 19.
Legal Battle Intensifies in Money Laundering Case
During the proceedings, Justice Amit Bansal heard initial arguments from both the senior counsel representing the accused and the legal team for the Enforcement Directorate (ED). While the defense argued for protection from arrest, the ED raised significant concerns regarding the applicant's conduct during the investigation.
Representing the ED, Advocate Rajat Nair requested additional time to respond, asserting that the applicant has been non-cooperative with the investigating agencies. In contrast, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, appearing for Nayan N Raheja, highlighted the reputation of the Raheja group, noting they have completed approximately 15 projects and constructed around 2,000 flats for the BPL category. The defense maintained that the applicant is ready to join the investigation.
The Trial Court's Previous Rejection
The move to the High Court follows a decision by Special Judge (PMLA) Sachin Jain at the Saket District Court, who dismissed the bail application. The trial court's decision was heavily influenced by the applicant's failure to appear before investigating officers when summoned.
Key findings from the September 19 order included:
- Non-Cooperation: The court observed that out of seven summons served, the applicant only appeared twice at the Gurugram Zonal Office, failing to cooperate on five occasions.
- PMLA Conditions: The judge ruled that the "twin conditions" under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA were not met, as the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing he is not guilty of money laundering.
- Legal Standing: The court noted that being unnamed in certain FIRs or not being charge-sheeted does not automatically absolve an individual from PMLA proceedings unless they can prove they have not dealt with the proceeds of crime.
Allegations of Fund Misappropriation
The Enforcement Directorate had registered the case following several FIRs filed in Delhi and Gurugram. The core of the investigation involves allegations that funds collected from customers for various residential and commercial projects were misappropriated rather than being used for project completion.
The projects mentioned in the investigation include:
- Raheja Revanta
- Raheja Shilas
- Raheja Trinity
- Raheja Oma
- Raheja Mall
- Raheja Aranya
- Raheja Atharva
- Vedanta
The ED alleges that money intended for these developments was diverted, leading to the non-delivery of flats to homebuyers. The Delhi High Court has listed the matter for further hearing on October 6.