Delhi High Court refuses anticipatory bail in ED case over Raheja Development funds

The Delhi High Court on 15 October 2026 dismissed a plea for anticipatory bail by a former director of Raheja Development Limited (RDL) in a money-laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). According to the ED, Rs 1,601.63 crore collected from homebuyers was diverted. The court held that the applicant had not met the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

What Happened

The ED registered its case on 31 March 2022, based on six FIRs filed against RDL by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi and Gurugram Police. The ED has alleged that funds paid by homebuyers were diverted to RDL's group companies. Per the judgment, the ED issued provisional attachment orders on 28 April, 5 June and 30 July 2026, and the applicant's side told the court the attached properties are worth about Rs 3,400 crore.

The applicant argued that they left RDL's board in 2010, hold 0.81% of its shares, and that projects the ED calls incomplete have been delivered. The court said it could not hold a "mini-trial" at this stage on whether the transfers were legitimate. The ED told the court that nine summonses were issued between April and August 2026 and the applicant did not appear in person. The court held that the reasons given were not justified, noting earlier undertakings to cooperate, and that this conduct also ruled out protection. A Sessions Court had rejected the same plea on 19 September 2026. The High Court said nothing in its judgment is an opinion on the merits.

These are allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty in court, and due process continues. A provisional attachment must be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA.

What It Means

Anticipatory bail is protection from arrest sought before any arrest. Under the PMLA, a court can grant it only if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. For homebuyers in RDL projects, the ruling means the ED investigation continues; the court noted that the applicant's role is still being examined. The judgment does not decide whether homebuyer money was misused or order any refund.

Source: High Court judgment