New Delhi [India], October 1 : The Delhi High Court on Thursday heard the arguements of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on the anticipatory bail plea of former Director of Raheja Developer Ltd. (RDL), Nayan N Raheja, in a money laundering case. 
His Anticipatory bail plea was rejected by the trial court on September 19.
Justice Amit Bansal heard the initial arguments by the senior counsel for the accused and the counsel for the ED. The matter has been listed for hearing on October 6.
Advocate Rajat Nair appeared for the ED and sought time to respond. He submitted that the applicant was non-cooperative.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa appeared for Nayan N Raheja. 
Senior advocate submitted that Raheja is well known builder. They have completed around 15 projects. They have also constructed around 2000 flats for BPL category. Applicant is ready to join investigation.
Saket District Court had dismissed the Anticipatory bail plea of Nayan N Raheja in a money laundering case. Earlier, he was granted protection from coercive action. 
The Enforcement Directorate had registered a case in connection with the non-delivery of flats to home buyers within the agreed time.
Special Judge (PMLA) Sachin Jain dismissed the Anticipatory bail application of Nayan N Raheja in the money laundering case, considering his conduct of non-appearance before the investigating officer as and when summoned.
The court had said that merely because the applicant is not named in any of the FIRs forming part of the ECIR or though named but not charge-sheeted, does not ipso facto mean that he also stands absolved from the proceedings under PMLA unless he establishes or at least prima facie shows at the stage of anticipatory bail that he has not dealt with the proceeds of crime in any manner as envisaged under section 3 of the PMLA.
The trial court was of the view that the Twin conditions provided under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA are not satisfied and the applicant has not been able to demonstrate that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the offence of money laundering.
"In addition thereto, his conduct of not appearing and cooperating in the investigation as and when summoned, disentitles him to the concession of anticipatory bail, which can be granted otherwise only in exceptional circumstances, where the accused can showcase that he has been falsely implicated with a view to harass and humiliate him," the court said in the order of September 19.
The court had observed that out of seven occasions on which the summons were served upon the applicant, he only appeared on two occasions before the Gurugram Zonal Office and failed to appear in person and co-operate in the investigation on five occasions on one pretext or the other.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for ED, Anand Kirti, had argued that even though the accused gave an unequivocal
undertaking before the Delhi High Court, which was noted in the order of 30.07.2026 that “The petitioner’s undertaking is taken on record that the petitioner will fully cooperate with the Enforcement Directorate.
The ED had registered a case on the basis of several FIRs registered at Delhi and Gurugram.
It was argued that in all the FIRs, it was alleged that the accused persons/entities named therein collected money from customers for providing residential flats and commercial spaces in various projects under the name and aegis of Raheja Revanta, Raheja Shilas, Raheja Trinity, Raheja Oma, Raheja Mall, Raheja Aranya, Raheja Atharva and Vedanta; however, it is alleged that instead of utilising the collected funds for completion of these
projects, the company misappropriated the said funds and failed to deliver the completed units.
It was argued by the counsel for accsued that since the accused has not been charge-sheeted in the predicate offences, therefore, no offence of money laundering under section 3 of PMLA is made out against him.
It was also argued that the twin condition under section 45 of the PMLA stands satisfied, as there is no proceeds of crime attributable to the accused, as the very foundation of invoking the provisions of the PMLA against the applicant is conspicuously absent.
It was further argued by senior counsel that Nayan Raheja was never involved in day-to-day management or decision-making in M/s Raheja Developers Ltd. (RDL) and he held the position of a director from 15.01.2003 to 12.01.2008 and again from 16.08.2010 to 26.11.2010 and thereafter he never held any position in the management of the company. He is a shareholder holding 0.81% shares in the company and drawing salary from RDL for advising towards architectural drawings.
It is the case of the ED that during investigation under PMLA, there is sufficient material available on record that the applicant/accused was looking after the affairs of M/s RDL, the parent company, named in all the FIRs forming part of the ECIR or at least the applicant/accused was director of the subsidiary companies of M/s RDL in which the funds received from the home buyers were diverted for non-construction purposes.
During the course of investigation under PMLA, 2002, it was revealed that M/s. Raheja Developers Ltd. (RDL) collected substantial sums of money from homebuyers for the development of the various projects with assurances that residential/commercial units would be delivered within the stipulated time period as mentioned in the Builder Buyer Agreement.
However, despite the lapse of the agreed possession period, RDL failed to deliver the flats to the
homebuyers.