The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused regular bail to Arif Nisar, an alleged associate of the Vuenow Group of Companies, in a money laundering case investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), observing that economic offences involving alleged financial manipulation and diversion of funds warrant a cautious approach at the bail stage.
Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed Nisar’s petition, holding that the material collected during the investigation prima facie indicated his active association with the group and his alleged involvement in transactions connected with the proceeds of crime.
The case concerns allegations that the Vuenow Group attracted investors by offering cloud-storage facilities and purported “Cloud Particles” with assurances of high rental returns. According to the ED, the actual storage capacity did not match the representations allegedly made to investors, while payments to earlier investors were purportedly funded by investments from subsequent investors.
The prosecution alleged that accused participated in seminars to attract investors, was associated with the financial activities of the group’s entities and received approximately ₹3.24 crore from connected companies over five years. The ED also alleged that he held a 75% shareholding in Zebyte Infotech Private Limited and acted as an authorised signatory and approver of its bank accounts.
The petitioner argued that the amount received by him represented remuneration for his services and that his role was limited to that of a mentor and seminar speaker. He further submitted that he had been in custody since February 24, 2025, the prosecution complaint had already been filed, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon given the volume of evidence and the number of witnesses.
Rejecting the bail plea, the Court observed that the allegations were not confined to a general association with the other accused but also concerned his purported involvement in financial transactions connected with the alleged proceeds of crime. It held that the nature and source of the funds received by Nisar, and their alleged connection with the proceeds of crime, would have to be examined during trial.
Emphasising the seriousness of economic offences, the Court observed:
“
“Economic Offence(s) corrode the fabric of democracy and are committed with total disregard to the rights and interest of the nation and are committed by breach of trust and faith and are against the national economy and national interest. Far from being isolated infractions of private law, these calculated, sub-terranean depredations; whether executed through sophisticated corporate syndicates, digital subterfuge, or fiduciary deceit, strike directly at the heart of the national exchequer. Operating within a cool, pre-mediated design, they weaponise regulatory lacunae to siphon off public wealth, reducing the constitutional promise of common security to a cruel mockery and rendering the collective citizenry of the nation the silent victims of financial pillage.
Economic offence(s) are frequently characterized by calculated design, deliberation, sophistication and a conscious abuse of financial, commercial and fiduciary mechanisms.
Unlike an offence which may be committed in a moment of passion, impulse or sudden provocation, an economic offence(s) may, indubitably depending upon its factual matrix, involve a preconceived course of conduct, preparation, manipulation of records or transactions, diversion or layering of funds, creation of fictitious documentation, misuse of corporate or fiduciary structures, concealment of the proceeds or coordinated participation of several persons. In essence, it is nothing more than the cold-blooded institutionalized mugging of the public treasury dressed up in a tailored-suit.”
On the question of prolonged incarceration, the Court noted that the ED had cited 52 prosecution witnesses and relied on 70 documents running into more than 7,000 pages. It held that the period of custody, considered alongside the gravity of the allegations and the stage of the proceedings, did not warrant bail at this stage. The Court also noted that the statutory requirements under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, had not been satisfied.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the bail petition, clarifying that its observations would not influence the trial court’s independent assessment of the evidence.
