Why Nayan Raheja Must Not Be Granted Anticipatory Bail: The Saket Court’s Record on Non-Cooperation, the Twin Conditions of Section 45, and a ₹2,426-Crore Homebuyer Investigation
Nayan N. Raheja, former director of Raheja Developers Ltd. and son of promoter Navin M. Raheja, has moved the Delhi High Court seeking anticipatory bail after Special Judge (PMLA) Sachin Jain of the Saket District Court rejected his application on 19 September 2026. The High Court heard the matter on 1 October 2026 before Justice Amit Bansal; the Enforcement Directorate opposed the plea and sought time to respond, while the applicant’s counsel maintained readiness to cooperate. A parallel petition seeking quashing of the Enforcement Case Information Report remains pending. The question now before the High Court is whether the trial court’s refusal should be disturbed. On the record as it stands, it should not.
The Trial Court’s Findings on Conduct and Statutory Conditions
The Saket order rests on two interlocking grounds that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act treats as decisive at the anticipatory-bail stage.
First is the documented pattern of non-cooperation. Summonses were served on seven occasions. Raheja appeared before the ED’s Gurugram Zonal Office on only two occasions and failed to appear personally and cooperate on five occasions, citing different reasons described by the court as “on one pretext or the other.” This occurred against the backdrop of an unequivocal undertaking given before the Delhi High Court on 30 July 2026 that he would “fully cooperate with the Enforcement Directorate.” Special Public Prosecutor Anand Kirti placed that undertaking before the trial court. The Saket judge held that the conduct of non-appearance and non-cooperation “disentitles him to the concession of anticipatory bail,” which is available only in exceptional circumstances where an accused can demonstrate false implication for harassment or humiliation.
Second is the failure to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA. The court found that Raheja had not demonstrated reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the alleged money-laundering offence. It further held that the mere fact that a person is not named in the underlying predicate FIRs, or is named but not charge-sheeted, does not ipso facto absolve him from PMLA proceedings. At the anticipatory-bail stage the applicant must at least prima facie establish that he has not dealt with the proceeds of crime in any manner contemplated under Section 3 of the Act. On the material before it, the court concluded that this threshold had not been crossed.
These are not peripheral observations. Section 45 imposes a reverse burden that courts are required to apply rigorously in money-laundering cases. Non-cooperation after a recorded undertaking of full cooperation is independent evidence of the risk that an applicant may not submit to the investigation if protected from arrest. Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy. The trial court treated the combination of statutory non-satisfaction and investigative non-compliance as sufficient to refuse it. That assessment should not be lightly set aside.
The Scale of the Alleged Proceeds of Crime
The underlying investigation arises from multiple FIRs registered by the Economic Offences Wing and other authorities on complaints by homebuyers concerning projects associated with Raheja Developers Ltd., including Raheja Revanta, Raheja Shilas, Raheja Trinity, Raheja Oma, Raheja Mall, Raheja Aranya, Raheja Atharva and Vedanta. The consistent allegation is that funds collected from customers for construction and delivery were not utilised for completing those projects and were instead diverted, while possession remained undelivered after contractual periods had expired. These remain allegations under investigation; there has been no final adjudication of guilt.
The Enforcement Directorate has placed precise figures on the public record. In its 28 April 2026 press release and subsequent attachment notes, the agency stated that Raheja Developers Ltd. collected approximately ₹2,425.99 crore from around 4,600 homebuyers for various residential projects “under the pretext of providing residential units.” It alleged that a substantial portion of these funds was diverted through related entities and shell companies for purposes unconnected with the projects. Provisional attachments of immovable properties have reached a cumulative estimated market value of approximately ₹2,399.65 crore (approximately ₹1,113.81 crore on 28 April 2026, ₹503.48 crore on 15 June 2026, and ₹782.36 crore on 31 July 2026). These attachments cover assets of the company, related entities, Navin M. Raheja and family members. Attachment is provisional and does not itself return money to buyers, but it reflects the scale of property the agency has identified as potentially linked to the alleged proceeds.
In the context of Nayan Raheja’s separate quashing petition, reports of the pleadings refer to higher collection and diversion figures in some accounts (approximately ₹2,699.13 crore collected and ₹1,353.26 crore allegedly diverted) and to a specific allegation that he received ₹1.23 crore from proceeds of crime, against which properties of approximately ₹14.10 crore belonging to him were provisionally attached, bank accounts frozen, and residence placed under surveillance. The ED has contended that investigative material indicates his involvement in the affairs of the parent company and that he was a director of subsidiary companies into which homebuyer funds were allegedly diverted for non-construction purposes.
The magnitude of the collections and attachments is relevant to the bail question. Where the alleged proceeds of crime run into thousands of crores and involve thousands of individual homebuyers, the statutory presumption in favour of continued investigation and against easy pre-arrest protection is stronger, not weaker. The risk that an accused who has already failed to appear on five of seven summonses after giving an undertaking of cooperation may not fully submit to further examination is not abstract.
The Defence Arguments and Why They Do Not Overcome the Threshold at This Stage
Raheja’s counsel has argued that he was never involved in day-to-day management or decision-making. Directorship periods cited are 15 January 2003 to 12 January 2008 and a short second period from 16 August 2010 to 26 November 2010. He is said to hold only 0.81 per cent of the company’s shares and to have received remuneration for advising on architectural drawings. The defence further contends that he has not been charge-sheeted in the predicate offences in the manner alleged and that no proceeds of crime can be attributed to him.
These submissions may be tested at trial. At the anticipatory-bail stage they do not automatically displace the twin conditions or the conduct finding. The Saket court specifically rejected the proposition that absence from predicate charge-sheets provides an automatic exit from PMLA proceedings. The statute requires a prima facie showing that the applicant has not dealt with proceeds of crime. The ED has placed before the court material alleging involvement beyond formal titles, including directorships in entities into which funds were allegedly moved. Whether that material ultimately withstands scrutiny is a matter for investigation and trial. It is not a reason to grant pre-arrest protection when the applicant has not met the statutory threshold and has a recorded history of non-appearance after an undertaking of cooperation.
The Broader Context of Delayed Projects and Regulatory Findings
The money-laundering investigation (ECIR registered in 2022) does not stand in isolation. Raheja Revanta in Sector 78, Gurugram, was launched in 2011 with possession promised in 36 months for independent floors and 48 months for towers. The completion date later declared to Haryana RERA was 31 July 2022. On 8 June 2026 the National Company Law Tribunal admitted a Section 7 insolvency petition by 176 allottees holding 99 units who stated they had paid more than ₹137 crore, many of them 90–95 per cent of the price. The tribunal noted that memoranda acknowledging delay had not been honoured. Insolvency admission is a finding of default under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for the named project; it is not a criminal conviction. Other project-specific insolvency proceedings have been admitted. Haryana RERA has directed refunds with interest in multiple matters, including an August 2026 order requiring refund of approximately ₹50.5 lakh plus 10.8 per cent interest after a commercial unit in Raheja Trinity remained incomplete despite payment of over 95 per cent. These independent regulatory findings of non-delivery and default reinforce the public interest in a thorough, uninterrupted investigation of the money-laundering allegations that arise from the same projects.
Conclusion: The Statutory Test and the Record of Non-Cooperation Must Be Applied
No court has convicted Nayan N. Raheja of money laundering. Provisional attachment is not confiscation. The company has denied wrongdoing. Those facts are not in dispute. They do not, however, override the trial court’s specific findings that the twin conditions under Section 45 were not satisfied and that five failures to appear after a High Court undertaking of full cooperation disentitled the applicant to anticipatory bail.
Granting anticipatory bail at this stage would require the High Court to conclude either that the non-cooperation record is immaterial or that the applicant has now made the prima facie showing the Saket court found lacking. Neither conclusion follows from the material presently on record. The investigation concerns alleged diversion of funds on a very large scale from thousands of homebuyers. The statute places the burden on the applicant seeking pre-arrest protection. The trial court applied that burden and the conduct test and refused bail. That refusal should be upheld.
The Enforcement Directorate and the special courts already possess the tools required for a thorough investigation and a fair trial. What the record now requires is rigorous adherence to the twin conditions of Section 45, consistent treatment of non-cooperation after an undertaking of cooperation as disentitling, and expedition in completing the investigation and moving the matter to trial. Anticipatory bail is not the default. On the facts and the statutory test applied by the Saket court, it should not be granted.
