Lucknow: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has confirmed that its money laundering investigation against businessman Nikant Jain, alleged aide to senior IAS officer Abhishek Prakash, will continue despite the Allahabad High Court quashing the FIR that accused him of demanding a “5% cut” to facilitate approval of an ₹8,000-crore solar project under the Invest UP initiative.
Senior ED officials clarified that the court’s decision, which granted relief to Jain in the bribery and extortion case, does not impact the ongoing probe initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
ED to Base Investigation on Multiple Other FIRs
Officials indicated that the agency will rely on five other FIRs registered against Jain in different districts, including Etah, Meerut, Wazirganj in Lucknow, and Matsena in Firozabad.
“According to information placed before the court, these separate cases will serve as the predicate offences for the ED’s continuing probe,” said an ED official.
Earlier on August 6, the ED conducted extensive searches at Jain’s premises and those of his associates in Lucknow, seizing several documents. Jain was also summoned for questioning as part of the investigation.
Allahabad HC Highlights Procedural Lapses in Bribery Case
While quashing the FIR linked to the alleged bribery demand in the Invest UP solar project, the Allahabad High Court pointed out significant procedural lapses in the police investigation.
The court noted that the complainant had retracted his allegations before the court. Additionally, police failed to prepare the mandatory site plan of the alleged place of occurrence. The court observed that investigators should have completed the exercise through alternative means, even if the complainant did not cooperate.
The order also highlighted the absence of evidence substantiating the bribery charge. Investigators did not recover any cash trail, bank transaction records, third-party testimony, or audio/video proof to establish that any illegal gratification was demanded or received.
A serious procedural irregularity noted by the court was that the investigating officer allegedly recorded the accused’s statement himself.
Delays in Solar Project Attributed to Administrative Hurdles
The court further observed that delays in the solar project’s progress were due to pending reports related to land allocation from YEIDA and electricity subsidy clearance from UPPCL. Records from Invest UP suggested that the project file had been held up because of these pending reports and not due to any intervention by Jain.
Under Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court emphasized that it is essential to prove that an undue advantage was offered or promised to influence a public servant. The court found no material evidence supporting such an allegation in this case.
ED Maintains Independent Investigation
Despite the setback in the primary FIR, the ED has maintained that its investigation will proceed independently based on other registered offences. Officials confirmed that documentary evidence collected during earlier searches and statements recorded during questioning will be examined in light of the additional FIRs.
The agency has not indicated a timeline for the next phase of the probe.
