Delhi High Court denies anticipatory bail to Raheja heir in ED probe into alleged diversion of ₹1,601 crore from homebuyers’ funds

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) registered an ECIR in 2022 based on FIRs concerning Raheja Development Limited (RDL) and its alleged diversion of homebuyers’ funds. The applicant, Nayan N Raheja, was named in three of eight predicate FIRs; he submitted that he was not chargesheeted in two and that the third was quashed.

He had previously appeared before the ED, but after an iPad was seized from his wife’s residence in April 2026, he did not appear in person in response to further summons, instead citing reasons including being out of station and requesting video-conference attendance.

The Sessions Court dismissed his anticipatory-bail application on 19 September 2026, and he sought anticipatory bail from the High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the applicant satisfied the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, for anticipatory bail.

Whether the applicant’s absence from the predicate-offence chargesheets, prior cooperation, and explanation for not appearing in person before the ED warranted anticipatory bail.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides the procedural basis for the anticipatory-bail application; Sections 45 and 65 of the PMLA were also invoked.

Under Section 45, bail requires reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of money laundering and that the accused is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail; these twin conditions apply to anticipatory bail.

Sections 3 and 2(1)(u) of the PMLA address money laundering and “proceeds of crime”; the offence is distinct from the scheduled offence, and a person need not be an accused in the predicate offence to face PMLA proceedings if involved in activity connected with proceeds of crime.

A person summoned under Section 50 of the PMLA must appear in person, and prior attendance does not preclude further summons based on new facts.

The Court also referred to the principle that custodial interrogation may be necessary for effective investigation.

The Court held that the applicant’s absence from the predicate-offence chargesheets did not, by itself, exclude PMLA liability. The ED’s material—including the applicant’s roles in group companies, data on the seized iPad concerning project costs and inventory, and an employee’s statement—was sufficient at the bail stage to indicate his possible involvement in RDL’s affairs and the alleged diversion of funds.

The Court declined to determine whether particular transfers were legitimate or to resolve the competing calculations of alleged diversion, treating those matters as issues for investigation rather than a mini-trial at the bail stage.

It further found the applicant’s explanations for not appearing in person after the iPad seizure unjustified, particularly because he had undertaken to cooperate and nevertheless sought to attend by video conference in response to later summons.

On the material before it, the Court concluded that the applicant had not met the Section 45 conditions.

The Court clarified that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.