Anticipatory Bail To Builder Nayan Raheja has been refused by the Delhi High Court in the Enforcement Directorate’s money laundering case, and the reasons will be known only when the detailed order is released.
New Delhi: Builder Nayan N. Raheja, associated with Raheja Developers, has lost his bid for pre-arrest protection: on Thursday the Delhi High Court dismissed his anticipatory bail application in a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) [Nayan N. Raheja v. Directorate of Enforcement].
The order was passed by Justice Amit Bansal. With the detailed order awaited, the Court’s reasons are not yet available. The allegations are those of the ED and are untested; the Court has expressed no view on the merits, and the presumption of innocence applies.
The route to the High Court
Raheja’s anticipatory bail plea was first rejected by the Special Judge (PMLA) at the Saket court on September 19, 2026. The trial court noted that he had appeared before the ED’s Gurugram zonal office on only two of seven summonses. It held that the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA were not met and that non-cooperation weighed against pre-arrest protection.
The High Court heard initial submissions on October 1, 2026. Raheja had given an undertaking to the High Court on July 30, 2026 to cooperate with the ED, which the agency says was not honoured.
What the ED alleges
The agency’s case follows complaints by homebuyers that flats in Raheja Developers’ projects were not delivered on the agreed timelines; multiple FIRs in Delhi and Gurugram concern funds collected for projects. According to the ED, nearly Rs 2,699 crore was collected from homebuyers, of which about Rs 1,353 crore was diverted through accounts, group entities and related transactions.
The ED also alleges that Raheja repeatedly failed to appear despite summons under Section 50 of the PMLA, and did not honour undertakings given before courts to cooperate with the probe.
The two sides’ contentions
Opposing the plea, the ED said that Raheja managed the affairs of Raheja Developers or directed subsidiaries to which homebuyers’ money was diverted, and that he was non-cooperative.
At the earlier hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, for Raheja, argued that the group had completed about 15 projects, that Raheja is willing to cooperate, and that he has not been charge-sheeted in the predicate offences, so the PMLA’s Section 3 should not apply. He said that Raheja was not involved in day-to-day management, was a director from 2003 to 2008 and from August to November 2010, holds 0.81 per cent of the shares, and was paid for advice on architectural drawings. These are the parties’ contentions, not findings.
What to watch for
Anticipatory bail in PMLA cases is closely tied to the accused’s cooperation with the investigation. The refusal follows the trial court’s view that absence from the FIRs or the lack of a charge-sheet does not by itself take an accused outside Section 3 of the Act.
The reasoning of the High Court will become clear only when the detailed order is released, and it will shape how courts treat undertakings given to cooperate with the ED.
Case Title: Nayan N. Raheja v. Directorate of Enforcement (case number not available)
Bench: Justice Amit Bansal, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa with Sandeep Kapur, Manmeet Kaur, Irfan Muzamil, Jasmeet Singh, Rishabh Munjal, Priyal Jain, Kholi Rakuzhuro and Kunal Kochar for Nayan Raheja; Rajat Nair, Sarthak Maan and Dhruv Pande for the ED