After Missing 5 Summons From ED & Denied By By District Court Nayan Raheja Moves Delhi HC For Anticipatory Bail

Raheja Developers Ltd. (RDL) director Nayan N. Raheja has approached the Delhi High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a money-laundering investigation being conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), after the Saket District Court rejected his plea on September 19.

The High Court hearing has brought a particularly uncomfortable question back into focus: if an accused undertakes to fully cooperate with an investigating agency, why does the court record subsequently show five instances of non-appearance out of seven summonses?

That contradiction is now central to the bail proceedings.

Justice Amit Bansal heard the matter on October 1, with the ED opposing the application. The agency sought additional time to respond, while Raheja’s counsel maintained that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation. The matter was listed for further hearing on October 6. Web India 123

Seven summonses. Two appearances. Five failures to appear.

The most damaging aspect of the case, at least at the anticipatory-bail stage, is not merely the existence of the ED investigation. It is the applicant’s documented interaction with the investigation itself.

In its September 19 order, the Saket PMLA court recorded that summonses were served upon Nayan Raheja on seven occasions. According to the court, he appeared before the ED’s Gurugram Zonal Office on only two occasions and failed to appear personally and cooperate with the investigation on five occasions, citing different reasons. Web India 123

The court also referred to an undertaking given before the Delhi High Court on July 30, 2026, under which the petitioner had undertaken to fully cooperate with the ED.

That creates a sharp legal and factual tension.

On one side is the defence position that Raheja is ready to cooperate. On the other is the trial court’s finding that, despite repeated summonses and an earlier undertaking, he did not appear on five occasions.

For an accused seeking the extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail in a PMLA investigation, the issue of cooperation is hardly peripheral. The Saket court explicitly relied upon his conduct while rejecting the application. Web India 123

The money trail at the heart of the investigation

The underlying ED investigation arises from multiple FIRs registered in Delhi and Gurugram concerning allegations surrounding the collection and utilisation of funds from homebuyers.

According to the case presented before the court, buyers paid substantial amounts for residential and commercial properties associated with projects including:

Raheja Revanta, Raheja Shilas, Raheja Trinity, Raheja Oma, Raheja Mall, Raheja Aranya, Raheja Atharva and Vedanta. Web India 123

The allegation is serious: money collected from customers for construction and delivery of these units was allegedly not utilised for completing the projects for which it had been collected. Instead, the ED has alleged that the funds were misappropriated or diverted for other purposes, while promised units remained undelivered even after the contractual possession periods had expired. Web India 123

These are allegations under investigation and have not been finally adjudicated as criminal guilt. But they form the factual foundation of the PMLA proceedings now confronting the former director.

Defence says: “No management role, no proceeds of crime”

Nayan Raheja’s defence has attempted to sharply separate him from the operational affairs of Raheja Developers.

His senior counsel argued that Raheja was never involved in the day-to-day management or decision-making of RDL. The defence placed his directorship periods between January 15, 2003 and January 12, 2008, and again between August 16, 2010 and November 26, 2010.

According to the defence, he subsequently held no management position in the company.

The defence further submitted that Raheja holds only 0.81% of the company’s shares and received remuneration from RDL for advising on architectural drawings. It also argued that he had not been charge-sheeted in the predicate offences and that no proceeds of crime could be attributed to him. Web India 123

That is the central defence narrative: former director does not mean operational controller; minority shareholder does not mean beneficiary; and absence from the predicate charge sheets, according to the defence, undermines the PMLA case against him.

But the ED has challenged that narrative.

ED’s case: the corporate structure cannot be used as a shield

The ED has told the court that its investigation has yielded sufficient material indicating that Raheja was involved in the affairs of RDL, the parent company named in the FIRs forming part of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).

More significantly, the agency has alleged that he was a director of subsidiary companies of RDL into which funds received from homebuyers were allegedly diverted for purposes unrelated to construction. Web India 123

That allegation goes directly to the heart of the defence.

The question before the courts is not simply whether Raheja held a particular corporate title at a particular point in time. It is whether the investigative material prima facie connects him with the handling, movement or utilisation of alleged proceeds of crime in the manner covered by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Not being named in the original FIRs is not an automatic escape route

The Saket court also rejected the argument that a person cannot face PMLA proceedings merely because he was not named—or was named but not charge-sheeted—in the underlying predicate FIRs.

The court held that such circumstances do not automatically absolve an individual from PMLA proceedings. At the anticipatory-bail stage, the applicant has to at least prima facie establish that he did not deal with proceeds of crime in a manner contemplated under Section 3 of the PMLA. Web India 123

The court further held that the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA were not satisfied, and that Raheja had not demonstrated reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty of the alleged money-laundering offence. Web India 123

That finding is significant.

The legal controversy is therefore no longer confined to the narrow proposition of whether Raheja was named in the predicate cases. The court has indicated that the PMLA inquiry can extend to the person’s alleged role in dealing with the proceeds of crime.

The court’s criticism of non-cooperation became decisive

The September 19 order went further than merely finding the statutory conditions unsatisfied.

The court expressly said that Raheja’s conduct in not appearing and cooperating with the investigation when summoned disentitled him to the concession of anticipatory bail. The court characterised anticipatory bail as a concession that may be available in exceptional circumstances where the applicant can demonstrate that he has been falsely implicated for harassment or humiliation. Web India 123

In other words, the court was looking not only at the allegations but also at the conduct of the person asking for protection from arrest.

And that is where the chronology becomes difficult to ignore:

July 30: undertaking before the Delhi High Court to fully cooperate with the ED.
Seven summonses: served during the investigation.
Two appearances: recorded before the Gurugram Zonal Office.
Five non-appearances: recorded by the trial court.
September 19: anticipatory bail rejected by the Saket PMLA court.
October 1: Delhi High Court hears the fresh plea, with the ED opposing it. Web India 123

That sequence is now the most consequential part of the bail battle.

A corporate title is not the end of the story

The emerging legal issue is therefore bigger than one individual’s designation in corporate records.

The defence says Raheja’s historical directorship, limited shareholding and architectural role cannot be converted into liability for the alleged conduct of the company.

The ED, however, says the investigative material points beyond formal titles and toward the functioning of the corporate structure and subsidiary entities through which homebuyer funds were allegedly moved.

That disagreement will ultimately have to be tested through the evidence collected during investigation and subsequent judicial proceedings.

For now, what the court record establishes is narrower but important: the Saket court rejected anticipatory bail; it recorded five failures to appear out of seven summonses; it declined to treat absence from the predicate charge sheets as an automatic defence against PMLA proceedings; and it found the statutory conditions for anticipatory bail were not met. Web India 123

The bigger question: where did the homebuyers’ money go?

At the centre of this entire dispute are not corporate designations, boardroom explanations or competing legal narratives.

They are the homebuyers who allegedly paid for homes and commercial units that, according to the ED’s case, were not delivered within the promised timelines.

The investigation will ultimately have to answer the questions that matter most: how much money was collected, where it went, through which entities it moved, who controlled those entities, whether the money was diverted from the projects for which it was collected, and who benefited from that movement of funds.

The High Court’s consideration of Nayan Raheja’s anticipatory-bail plea therefore puts the spotlight back on those unanswered questions.

And until those questions are fully resolved through the judicial process, one issue remains particularly difficult to overlook: a promise to cooperate with an investigation is meaningful only when the conduct that follows matches the promise.