WHY NAYAN RAHEJA SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED ANTICIPATORY BAIL: SEVEN ED SUMMONSES, FIVE NON-APPEARANCES, AN UNFULFILLED COOPERATION EXPECTATION AND A MONEY TRAIL THAT DEMANDS ANSWERS

The question before the judiciary is not whether a person accused of an economic offence should be punished before trial. He must not be. The question is whether the requirements for exceptional pre-arrest protection have been satisfied when the trial court has already recorded repeated non-appearance, the Enforcement Directorate alleges a personal financial connection to the proceeds under investigation, and the movement of funds across multiple corporate entities remains a central issue.

Introduction: Anticipatory bail is a judicial remedy, not an escape from investigative scrutiny

The anticipatory-bail proceedings involving Nayan N. Raheja, former director of Raheja Developers Limited and son of its chairman-promoter, Navin M. Raheja, raise an important question concerning the administration of economic-crime investigations in India.

When an investigating agency alleges that thousands of homebuyers’ payments were routed through interconnected companies, when the financial transactions under scrutiny run into thousands of crores, and when the applicant’s own attendance before investigators has become a matter of adverse judicial observation, what should a court require before granting protection against arrest?

The answer must begin with the law, not public anger.

Anticipatory bail protects an individual against arrest where the applicable legal requirements justify that protection. It is not intended to punish an accused, and its grant cannot be equated with acquittal. Equally, it should not be granted mechanically, without examining the applicant’s conduct, the nature of the allegations, the requirements of the investigation and the applicable statutory conditions.

In Nayan Raheja’s case, the most consequential fact is that the Special Judge (PMLA), Sachin Jain, at the Saket District Court rejected his anticipatory-bail application on 19 September 2026. Reporting of the order records that seven summonses had been served, that Raheja appeared before the Enforcement Directorate’s Gurugram Zonal Office on two occasions, and that he failed to appear and cooperate on five occasions, “on one pretext or the other.”

The court held that the statutory conditions for bail had not been satisfied and that the applicant’s conduct weighed against the exceptional relief sought.

The subsequent Delhi High Court proceedings do not erase that order. They provide a further opportunity for judicial scrutiny, including consideration of the ED’s response and any additional material submitted by the applicant.

The primary procedural references include the reported September 2026 trial-court decision, the Delhi High Court order dated 1 October 2026 and its order dated 6 October 2026.

The legal case against anticipatory bail must therefore be built on the recorded conduct, the evidence of the alleged financial transactions, the statutory requirements and the actual investigative needs—not on the accused’s family name, wealth or corporate association.

On the presently reported record, there are substantial grounds for opposing pre-arrest protection.

1. Seven summonses, two appearances and five non-appearances: The first and most immediate objection

The most direct argument against granting anticipatory bail arises from the applicant’s recorded interaction with the investigation.

According to the reported order of 19 September 2026:

These figures are reported from the trial-court proceedings. They should not be interpreted as proof of money laundering, but they are directly relevant to assessing whether the applicant has demonstrated the cooperation and circumstances necessary for the relief sought.

The issue becomes more significant because the Delhi High Court had already recorded an undertaking on 30 July 2026 that Raheja would fully cooperate with the ED. That undertaking was subsequently relied on by the ED’s prosecutor when opposing anticipatory bail.

The point is not that every missed summons automatically justifies arrest. The reason for each non-appearance, the circumstances of service, the explanations supplied and the investigating agency’s conduct must all be considered.

The point is that a promise to cooperate must be assessed against what actually happened afterwards.

If the applicant was unable to attend for legitimate reasons, those reasons should be examined objectively. If alternative dates were requested, the correspondence should be considered. If the investigation required information that could not reasonably be supplied through another procedure, the agency should explain what it needed and why.

But if repeated non-appearance remained inadequately explained despite an undertaking of full cooperation, the court is entitled to consider the applicant’s conduct when deciding whether pre-arrest protection is justified.

There is an essential difference between saying, “I am willing to cooperate,” and establishing a record of cooperation when lawfully summoned.

Why this matters for bail

The ED’s investigation concerns corporate transactions, subsidiary companies, financial records and an alleged trail of funds. Such an investigation can require the clarification of individual decisions, explanations of particular transactions and confrontation with documents or other evidence.

An investigating agency must be able to undertake those steps lawfully and effectively.

If the applicant’s previous conduct gives the court reason to question whether voluntary attendance can be relied upon, that is a legitimate factor in deciding the application.

It is not necessary to declare that Raheja will abscond or interfere with evidence. The public record, as reviewed here, does not establish either as a proven fact.

The more precise argument is that the recorded history of non-appearance raises a concrete question about the effectiveness of ordinary investigative directions, and the applicant must address that concern through specific facts rather than a general assurance of future cooperation.

A court is not required to treat a future promise as conclusive when a relevant history of past conduct is already on the record.

2. The 30 July undertaking: Why the court must examine conduct, not assurances alone

The 30 July 2026 undertaking is an important part of the chronology.

The High Court recorded the applicant’s undertaking that he would fully cooperate with the ED. The subsequent reported finding that he failed to appear on five out of seven occasions creates an issue that requires judicial scrutiny.

The argument against anticipatory bail is not that the undertaking independently proves an offence. Nor is every failure to attend necessarily a breach of an undertaking: the precise dates, terms, explanations and subsequent directions must be assessed.

The argument is narrower and stronger.

Where a court has taken a specific undertaking on record, the applicant’s later conduct becomes relevant to whether the court can safely rely on another assurance of future cooperation.

The applicant’s position should therefore be tested against a detailed attendance record. The ED should place on record each summons, the date and method of service, the scheduled attendance, the reason given for non-appearance, any request for an alternative date and the investigative step that remained outstanding.

The applicant should be given a fair opportunity to respond to that material.

This is the kind of factual inquiry that makes the current proceedings important. It moves the matter away from general allegations of non-cooperation towards a verifiable record.

A judicial undertaking is not a finding of guilt. But neither should it be treated as a ceremonial formality that carries no significance when subsequent conduct is assessed.

If the ED establishes that the applicant repeatedly failed to comply without adequate explanation, the court has a sound basis to question whether anticipatory protection is appropriate at this stage.

If the applicant establishes legitimate explanations, the court must consider them fairly.

The decisive question is not who made the more persuasive assurance in court. It is whether the documentary record supports the assurance.

3. Section 45 of the PMLA: The statutory test cannot be reduced to an ordinary bail argument

The legal framework is central to the application.

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, prescribes conditions governing the grant of bail for offences under the Act. Among other requirements, where the provision applies and the prosecution is opposing release, the court must consider whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and whether the accused is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

The Supreme Court examined the provision and its application to anticipatory bail in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, decided on 27 July 2022. The Court held that the statutory rigours of Section 45 cannot be disregarded merely because the relief is sought before arrest rather than after arrest.

The judgment may be consulted through the Supreme Court’s official judgment repository.

The distinction matters because an anticipatory-bail application in a PMLA investigation is not decided solely by asking whether the applicant has a permanent address, a professional occupation or an assurance that he will attend in future.

The court must examine the applicable statutory requirements, the prosecution’s objections, the evidence presently available and the circumstances relevant to the relief sought.

In his September 2026 order, the Special Judge held that the twin statutory conditions had not been satisfied and that the applicant had not demonstrated reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty of money laundering.

That is a judicial assessment at the bail stage. It is not a final determination that Raheja committed the offence.

Nevertheless, it is directly relevant to the fresh application. The High Court should examine whether the evidence and submissions now placed before it materially alter the position considered by the trial court.

Why the defence must do more than point to the absence of a predicate-case charge-sheet

Raheja’s defence has argued that he was not charge-sheeted in the predicate offences forming the basis of the ED proceedings, that he was not involved in day-to-day management after his stated periods of directorship, that his shareholding was approximately 0.81%, and that his role concerned architectural advice.

Those are substantive submissions and deserve proper consideration.

However, the fact that a person was not named or charge-sheeted in a particular predicate FIR does not, by itself, conclusively determine whether material collected in a money-laundering investigation establishes a legally sustainable allegation against that person.

The status of the underlying scheduled offences, the existence and nature of the alleged proceeds of crime, the applicant’s alleged dealings with those proceeds and the evidentiary basis for each element must be assessed according to law.

The defence is entitled to argue that the statutory foundation is absent. The ED must establish the contrary through relevant material.

At the anticipatory-bail stage, the court must evaluate the submissions under the governing statutory framework, not resolve every disputed issue as though it were delivering a final judgment after trial.

On the presently reported record, the trial court has already held that the statutory conditions were not met. That finding is a substantial reason for refusing anticipatory bail unless the High Court is persuaded, on the fuller record before it, that the applicable legal test is satisfied.

4. The financial investigation is serious—but the personal allegation must remain distinct from the group-wide figures

The ED’s official releases concerning Raheja Developers describe collections of approximately ₹2,425.99 crore from around 4,600 homebuyers.

The agency has also reported provisional attachments of properties with a cumulative estimated market value of approximately ₹2,399.65 crore in three tranches:

The figures are reflected in the ED’s 28 April 2026 press release, reporting of the 15 June attachment and the 31 July 2026 ED release.

The agency alleges that substantial funds collected from homebuyers were siphoned off through related entities and shell companies, eventually reaching entities controlled by the director, family members and associates, and being used for purposes unrelated to the projects.

These allegations are grave and warrant forensic scrutiny. But the cumulative group-wide collection figure is not the same as the amount personally attributable to Raheja, and the aggregate attachment value is not a finding of criminal guilt.

A separate report on proceedings concerning Raheja’s challenge to the ECIR cited approximately ₹2,699.13 crore in collections and alleged diversion of ₹1,353.26 crore for non-construction purposes. The same report identified an allegation that Raheja received ₹1.23 crore from the proceeds of crime.

These amounts come from different reported accounts and must be reconciled rather than combined indiscriminately. The relevant source is the PTI report carried by ETLegalWorld on 31 July 2026.

Why the alleged ₹1.23-crore receipt deserves examination

The reported allegation of a ₹1.23-crore receipt is particularly relevant because it concerns the alleged personal connection between the applicant and the proceeds under investigation, rather than merely the size of the wider corporate matter.

The amount does not, simply by being alleged, establish guilt. It is also not appropriate to treat the receipt as proved without examining the underlying transactions and the applicant’s explanation.

The ED should establish, to the extent supported by its evidence:

• The account from which the alleged amount originated and the account into which it was transferred.
• The date, purpose and recorded description of the transaction.
• The identity and role of the originating and receiving entities.
• The evidence linking the amount to alleged proceeds of crime.
• The applicant’s knowledge of and alleged dealings with the funds.
• The legal basis for attributing the transaction to him under the applicable provisions of the PMLA.

The applicant must be given an opportunity to challenge that material and provide an explanation.

This is precisely why the underlying financial trail matters to the bail application. If the agency has identified specific transactions requiring clarification, the court should examine whether the investigation can be effectively carried forward without the applicant’s participation in the lawful investigative process.

The argument is not that the magnitude of the wider case automatically disentitles Raheja to bail.

It is that the seriousness and complexity of the allegations, combined with the specific personal transaction alleged and the recorded attendance history, require more than a general promise of future cooperation before pre-arrest protection is granted.

The relevant figure is not merely how many crores the case involves. It is what the evidence shows about the applicant’s alleged role in the transaction under investigation.

5. The corporate-structure defence must be tested against documents, not accepted or rejected on labels

One of the principal defence submissions is that Raheja’s involvement was limited.

According to the reported proceedings, his counsel argued that:

• His directorship in Raheja Developers Limited existed during specified periods ending in November 2010.
• He held approximately 0.81% of the company’s shares.
• He received remuneration for advising on architectural drawings.
• He did not manage the company’s day-to-day affairs after the stated directorship periods.
• He was not charge-sheeted in the predicate offences forming the basis of the ECIR.

These submissions may be important to the final outcome. A person cannot be held criminally liable merely because he is related to a promoter or was previously associated with a company.

But the converse is equally true: a description of one’s corporate role does not conclusively establish the absence of involvement in the transactions under investigation.

The ED’s position, as reported in the proceedings, is that material collected during its investigation indicates that Raheja was looking after the affairs of the parent company or was a director of subsidiary companies into which homebuyer funds were allegedly diverted for purposes unrelated to construction.

That factual dispute should be resolved through the actual records.

What is required is an examination of statutory corporate filings, board minutes, bank mandates, transaction authorisations, accounting records, related-party transactions, communications and the roles of the people who controlled the recipient entities.

If the documents show that the applicant had no authority over the relevant transactions, that is an important part of his defence.

If the records show involvement in the relevant entities or dealings with alleged proceeds of crime, that material must be assessed fairly under the statutory framework.

The court should not assume that 0.81% shareholding proves innocence, just as it should not assume that a historical directorship proves criminal involvement.

Titles, relationships and percentages are starting points for investigation—not substitutes for evidence.

The strongest argument against anticipatory bail is therefore not that the applicant must be guilty because of his association with the group. It is that the issues concerning his actual role remain material to the investigation, and that his recorded failure to appear on five occasions must be considered when assessing whether protection from arrest should be granted.

6. Why the risk to the investigation must be assessed, not merely asserted

An objection to anticipatory bail should identify the specific investigative risks that protection might create. It is not sufficient to repeat the phrase “economic offence” as though that label alone answers the legal question.

The ED’s reported case concerns alleged transfers through related entities and shell companies, multiple housing projects and financial transactions involving different individuals and corporate accounts.

In such circumstances, the agency may need to establish who authorised the relevant transfers, the purpose for which they were made, the relationship between the originating and recipient entities, and the persons who exercised control over the funds.

If relevant documents have been seized or digital evidence preserved, that is important. It does not automatically eliminate every possible investigative concern, nor does it prove that interference would occur if bail were granted.

The court should require the ED to identify what investigative steps remain outstanding and explain why the proposed protection would materially affect those steps.

The agency should specify the questions it needs to put to the applicant, the transactions requiring explanation, any relevant records that have yet to be located or authenticated, and any concrete concern about interference with witnesses, documents or the tracing of assets.

The applicant should have a fair opportunity to respond.

If the ED establishes a genuine need for steps that cannot reasonably be completed through ordinary attendance or proportionate conditions, that can weigh against anticipatory bail. If it fails to establish any such need, that too is relevant.

This approach is more rigorous than assuming that every high-profile financial accused poses a flight risk or will tamper with evidence.

Anticipatory bail and custodial interrogation

The ED’s investigative requirements may be relevant to the court’s assessment, but custodial interrogation is not an automatic entitlement of the agency. Nor does a person’s refusal or failure to answer every question necessarily establish non-cooperation.

The legal question is whether the circumstances of the case justify pre-arrest protection, taking account of the nature of the alleged offence, the applicant’s conduct, the material available, the outstanding investigative steps and the applicable statutory conditions.

Where the trial court has recorded repeated non-appearance, the applicant should have to address that record convincingly. Where the agency seeks to rely on the need for custodial interrogation, it should explain why that need is genuine and proportionate.

A court can then assess both arguments on their merits.

The result should neither be automatic protection nor automatic arrest. It should be a reasoned decision applying the law to the particular record.

7. The homebuyer dimension: The public interest lies in an effective investigation, not punishment by headline

The wider investigation concerns approximately 4,600 homebuyers, according to the ED’s official published figures.

The projects identified in reporting on the proceedings include Raheja Revanta, Raheja Shilas, Raheja Trinity, Raheja Oma, Raheja Mall, Raheja Aranya, Raheja Atharva and Vedanta.

Some of these projects have separately featured in insolvency or regulatory proceedings. Those proceedings have their own legal foundations and outcomes; they do not independently prove that Raheja committed money laundering.

Nevertheless, the wider history explains why the financial investigation deserves careful and timely attention.

In June 2026, The Times of India reported that the NCLT had admitted an insolvency petition involving 176 homebuyers and 99 units in Raheja Revanta, with the buyers having paid more than ₹137 crore. The developer disputed the suggestion that it was simply responsible for all delays and cited external infrastructure and approval issues.

Source: The Times of India, 11 June 2026.

In September 2026, The Indian Express reported a Haryana RERA order directing a refund of ₹50,49,890, with 10.80% annual interest, to buyers who had booked a commercial unit in Raheja Trinity in 2017 and remained without the promised possession.

Source: The Indian Express, 4 September 2026.

These records illustrate the wider stakes. A family waiting for a flat may be paying rent while servicing debt. A buyer pursuing a refund may face additional expense and uncertainty. The delay in a project can have serious financial consequences even before any criminal issue is decided.

But the appropriate legal response is not to use those consequences as a substitute for proof against a particular accused.

The appropriate response is to ensure that the investigation is completed properly, that the alleged money trail is reconstructed, that legal responsibility is attributed to the right persons, and that any remedies available to affected buyers are pursued through the appropriate proceedings.

The public interest in an effective investigation is legitimate. It is strongest when the case rests on evidence that can withstand judicial scrutiny.

8. The company’s denial and the applicant’s defence cannot be ignored—but neither settles the case

Raheja Developers has denied wrongdoing and has advanced explanations for delays in some projects, including external infrastructure and approval issues. The company has also referred to its claimed construction record and a forensic audit which, according to its position, supports its argument that funds were not diverted.

In the October 2026 bail proceedings, Raheja’s counsel also argued that the group had completed around 15 projects and constructed approximately 2,000 flats for the economically weaker sections category. Counsel maintained that Raheja was willing to join the investigation.

These claims are relevant to the defence and should be examined where they bear on the legal issues.

A record of completed projects does not, by itself, establish how money was used in the projects under investigation. Likewise, allegations concerning certain projects do not establish that every project undertaken by the group was unlawful.

The forensic audit must be assessed on its actual scope and findings. The ED’s analysis should be tested against the underlying financial records. The reasons for delayed construction must be assessed against the contractual obligations, approvals and project-specific facts.

The court must also examine whether the evidence specifically links the applicant to the conduct alleged.

The bail question should not become a referendum on the developer’s overall reputation or a decision based on family association. It should turn on the applicable law and the particular facts of the case.

However, the existence of a defence does not erase the attendance record, and a willingness expressed in court does not automatically answer concerns arising from five reported non-appearances.

The applicant should be afforded a fair opportunity to explain those circumstances. The ED should be required to substantiate its allegations. The court should then decide whether anticipatory bail is justified.

That is a more defensible position than either accepting the prosecution’s allegations as proven or treating the defence’s explanations as conclusive.

9. Why the fresh High Court application should not automatically displace the trial court’s assessment

On 1 October 2026, the Delhi High Court issued notice in Bail Application No. 4194/2026. On 6 October, it directed the ED to file a status report supported by an affidavit, permitted additional documents to be filed, and listed the matter for 9 October 2026.

The latest signed order that could be independently verified for this article is dated 6 October. A subsequent signed order determining the application after the 9 October listing was not independently verified as of 10 October 2026.

The High Court’s consideration of the application is an important part of due process. The court must independently examine the applicable law and the record before it. It is not bound to reach a particular conclusion simply because the trial court rejected the earlier application.

Nevertheless, a fresh application does not make the trial court’s reasoning disappear.

The High Court should examine whether the attendance record has been accurately presented, whether the applicant has provided credible explanations for the non-appearances, whether he has materially changed his conduct, and whether the evidence and statutory requirements justify relief.

The ED should place the necessary records and its specific investigative concerns before the court. The applicant should be permitted to address them.

If no material development has resolved the trial court’s concerns, and if the relevant statutory requirements remain unsatisfied, the case for refusing anticipatory bail remains substantial.

Conversely, if the record materially changes, the court must evaluate that development in accordance with law.

This is not a request that the High Court defer mechanically to a lower court. It is an argument that the lower court’s reasoned assessment should not be displaced without a proper examination of the grounds on which the applicant seeks a different result.

Judicial review of a bail refusal is not a blank slate. It is an opportunity to test the reasoning, the evidence and the applicable law afresh.

10. The conditions that should guide the court’s decision

The opposition to anticipatory bail should be presented as a structured legal case rather than as a demand for punishment.

The ED’s status report and the court record should enable the following questions to be answered.

First: Has the applicant adequately explained the five non-appearances?

The court should examine the summonses, their service, the reasons supplied, the correspondence and the circumstances of each missed appearance. A bare assurance of future cooperation should not substitute for that examination.

Second: What effect should be given to the 30 July undertaking?

The applicant’s undertaking to cooperate should be considered alongside his subsequent conduct. If the ED demonstrates an unexplained pattern of non-appearance, the court can take that into account when deciding whether pre-arrest protection is appropriate.

Third: What is the evidentiary basis of the alleged personal financial link?

The reported ₹1.23-crore allegation should be supported by records identifying the transactions and connecting them to the alleged proceeds of crime. The applicant must be allowed to challenge the allegation and explain the transaction.

Fourth: What remains outstanding in the investigation?

The ED should identify the specific evidence, explanations or investigative steps that remain necessary, rather than merely invoking the complexity of a large financial investigation.

Fifth: Are the Section 45 requirements met?

The court must apply the relevant statutory conditions, the applicable Supreme Court jurisprudence and the ordinary principles governing anticipatory bail. The applicant’s conduct, the prosecution’s evidence and the precise legal position must all be considered.

Sixth: Would appropriately tailored conditions adequately address the risks?

The court should consider whether attendance directions, restrictions on contact with relevant witnesses, undertakings concerning evidence and other lawful conditions would sufficiently protect the investigation. If the evidence shows that conditions would be inadequate, that is a relevant argument against anticipatory bail.

These questions would allow the High Court to reach a reasoned decision based on the record rather than on assumptions about wealth, status or the seriousness of economic offences in the abstract.

11. The case for expeditious investigation and a timely decision

The rejection of anticipatory bail should not become an excuse for allowing the investigation to drift. Nor should the pending bail application prevent the ED from performing its lawful duties.

A serious financial investigation needs a coherent plan. It should reconcile the differing reported collection figures, trace the relevant transfers, identify the recipient entities, verify the alleged personal transaction, establish the role of each person and determine what evidence can be presented in the appropriate proceedings.

The ED should also clarify the status of the provisionally attached assets and the legal steps required for their adjudication.

The court should receive a useful status report, not a generic statement that investigation is continuing. The report should identify completed work, outstanding tasks, the reasons for any delay and a realistic path towards completing the necessary investigative steps.

The bail application should be decided promptly. If the statutory requirements are not met and the applicant’s conduct remains a serious concern, the application should be rejected. If the requirements are met on the evidence, the court must apply the law accordingly.

Any proceedings brought on the evidence should move towards timely adjudication.

The homebuyers’ interest is not served by a case that remains indefinitely at the stage of allegations and procedural applications. Nor is justice served if an individual is left under a cloud of unresolved suspicion without timely adjudication.

The proper demand is therefore for both accountability and speed: a rigorous investigation, a reasoned bail decision and a trial or other appropriate legal disposition without avoidable delay.

Conclusion: On the present record, the case for refusing anticipatory bail is substantial

The strongest argument against granting anticipatory bail to Nayan Raheja rests on the combined effect of four principal considerations.

First, the attendance record. The trial court recorded that he appeared on two of seven occasions on which summonses were served and did not appear and cooperate on five occasions. Those findings are relevant to whether the court can safely rely on a general assurance of future cooperation.

Second, the earlier undertaking. The High Court recorded on 30 July 2026 that he would fully cooperate with the ED. The subsequent attendance record creates a legitimate issue that the applicant must explain and the court must evaluate.

Third, the financial allegations and the alleged personal link. The ED’s published investigation concerns approximately ₹2,425.99 crore collected from around 4,600 homebuyers and property provisionally attached at a cumulative estimated value of approximately ₹2,399.65 crore. Separate reporting concerning the litigation identifies an alleged personal receipt of ₹1.23 crore. Those figures do not establish guilt, but they make the specific evidentiary questions important to resolve.

Fourth, the statutory framework. The trial court found that the conditions governing bail under Section 45 of the PMLA had not been satisfied. The High Court must independently assess whether the present record meets the relevant legal requirements.

Taken together, these considerations provide a serious basis for opposing anticipatory bail unless the applicant demonstrates, through credible material, why the concerns recorded by the trial court should no longer weigh against relief.

This is not an argument for guilt by association. It is not an argument that a homebuyer’s suffering can substitute for proof. Nor is it an argument that an accused should be deprived of liberty because an investigating agency has issued a press release.

It is an argument that exceptional pre-arrest protection must be justified under the applicable law, especially where the court has already recorded a pattern of non-appearance and the investigation concerns specific, substantial financial transactions.

The applicant must have a fair opportunity to contest the allegations. The ED must substantiate the money trail. The court must evaluate both sides independently.

If the material before the High Court does not satisfy the applicable statutory requirements, and the concerns regarding cooperation remain unresolved, anticipatory bail should be refused on the present record.

The next step should be a focused and time-bound investigation, followed by adjudication on the evidence. The objective must be to establish individual responsibility where proved, exclude it where not proved, preserve assets lawfully and pursue whatever remedies the law permits for affected homebuyers.

That is the balance a court must maintain: liberty without impunity, investigation without prejudice, and accountability without delay.

The demand is not for punishment before trial. It is that pre-arrest protection not be granted when the applicable legal requirements remain unsatisfied, and that the investigation be brought to a timely, evidence-based conclusion.

Reporting and legal note

This article reflects the publicly available record that could be verified as of 10 October 2026. The trial court’s rejection of anticipatory bail, the recorded summons history, the High Court undertaking and the published ED attachment figures are described with attribution. The alleged ₹1.23-crore receipt and the wider diversion allegations remain allegations, not convictions. Raheja’s defence submissions and the company’s denial of wrongdoing must be considered alongside the prosecution’s material.

The latest signed Delhi High Court order independently verified for this article was dated 6 October 2026 and listed the bail application for 9 October 2026. A subsequent signed order determining the application was not independently verified as of the date of writing. The current court record should be checked before publication or republication.