The Supreme Court of India has issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking its formal response to a regular bail plea filed by real estate developer Anil Mithas in connection with an alleged Rs 126-crore money laundering investigation.

A bench comprising the apex court's judges heard preliminary arguments on the matter and directed the federal financial probe agency to submit its reply detailing the status of the investigation, the specific allegations leveled against the accused, and its stance regarding custodial necessity.

Background of the Probe

Anil Mithas, the promoter associated with Unnati Fortune Holdings Limited, has been under the scanner of multiple investigative agencies over alleged financial irregularities and diversion of funds collected from prospective homebuyers.

The Enforcement Directorate initiated a probe under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) following multiple first information reports (FIRs) registered by the police. The underlying complaints accused the developer and corporate entities of defrauding homebuyers through delayed real estate projects, deceptive assurances, and the siphoning off of customer deposits into shell entities and unrelated business channels.

Key aspects of the financial investigation include:

* Diversion of Homebuyer Funds: The probe agency claims that over Rs 126 crore deposited by retail buyers for residential units was funneled through interconnected accounts. * Asset Attachment: ED investigators have previously undertaken provisional attachment orders against properties and commercial assets linked to the developer and related corporate firms. * Allegations of Corporate Mismanagement: Investigators contend that loan proceeds and public bookings were rerouted rather than deployed toward construction commitments in key urban corridors.

Arguments Before the Bench

Senior legal counsel appearing on behalf of Mithas submitted that the applicant has spent significant time in judicial custody and that the investigation, along with the filing of the principal complaint, is substantially advanced. The defense argued that continued detention would serve no meaningful purpose since all primary documents and business records have already been seized by federal authorities.

Counsel further contended that the applicant fulfills the requisites for bail under prevailing jurisprudence governing economic offenses and requested that the court grant relief pending trial.

On the other hand, the financial agency's standing counsel reiterated the gravity of financial crimes under the PMLA framework, emphasizing that the statutory conditions outlined under Section 45 of the Act impose stringent thresholds before bail can be granted to an accused in multi-crore fraud investigations.

Judicial Scrutiny and Next Steps

Having considered the preliminary submissions, the Supreme Court listed the matter for further hearing following the vacation and directed the Enforcement Directorate to place its counter-affidavit on record within a stipulated timeline.

The development marks an important stage in the legal battle surrounding real estate defaults and homebuyer protections, where courts have increasingly scrutinized fund diversions by project developers while balancing procedural rights and liberty under statutory bail frameworks.