The “twin conditions” of Section 45 of the PMLA also apply to anticipatory bail, so the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the applicant is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence on bail. Money laundering is a standalone offence, so a person need not be named or charge-sheeted in the original FIR to face a PMLA case if he is involved in a process connected with proceeds of crime. The court does not hold a mini-trial on the amounts at the bail stage. A person summoned under Section 50 must appear in person, and failing to cooperate despite an undertaking to the court can by itself disentitle him from anticipatory bail.
The Delhi High Court has refused anticipatory bail to Nayan N. Raheja, son of Raheja Developers’ promoter Navin Raheja, in an Enforcement Directorate money laundering case based on funds allegedly diverted from homebuyers. The court said that he failed the strict “twin conditions” under Section 45 of the PMLA and had not complied with repeated summons despite his own undertakings to the court.
The ED’s case, registered in March 2022, is based on eight FIRs against Raheja Developers Limited (RDL) and Navin Raheja. According to the ED, RDL collected about Rs 2,699 crore from homebuyers, and Rs 1,601.63 crore was diverted. The ED has provisionally attached properties worth about Rs 3,400 crore. The applicant’s lawyer argued that he left the RDL board in 2010 and holds only 0.81% of its shares, that he was named in only three of the eight FIRs, that two chargesheets did not name him and the Punjab and Haryana High Court had quashed the third, that the projects were completed, and that the ED’s diversion figure of Rs 1,601 crore differs from the Rs 151.83 crore stated by the Economic Offences Wing. Justice Amit Bansal held that money laundering is a standalone offence, and under Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, a person need not be named in the original FIR to face PMLA action. At the bail stage, the court does not hold a mini-trial on the amount of diversion. The court noted that the ED said that he looked after day-to-day affairs of RDL and was a director in group companies that received much of the funds, that an iPad seized from his wife’s home had project-wise cost and unsold inventory data, and that an RDL employee had said so in a PMLA statement. It held that his defence that he had access to this information as an architect is for trial. The court also found that he did not appear before the ED after April 2026, despite nine summonses and two court undertakings to cooperate, asking instead to appear by video conference, and that a person summoned under Section 50 must appear in person. Relying on CBI v. Anil Sharma on custodial interrogation, it dismissed the application.
The facts are the ED’s allegations, and the court said that nothing in its judgment is an opinion on the merits. The applicant has other proceedings pending, including a writ petition to quash the ED’s complaint, and the court did not decide those.
Citation: Nayan N. Raheja v. Directorate of Enforcement, Bail Appln. 4194/2026, Delhi High Court (Justice Amit Bansal), decided on 15.10.2026 | 2026:DHC:9195
Leave a Reply