Punjab and Haryana HC denies bail to Vuenow mentor accused in alleged ₹3,500-crore cloud-storage investment laundering scheme

The petitioner sought regular bail in Complaint Case No. COMA-2-2025 arising from ECIR No. JLZO/26/2024, registered by the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”).

The ED’s case concerned alleged fraudulent activities of the Vuenow Group of Companies, including Vuenow Marketing Services Ltd., Vuenow Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Zebyte Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and Zebyte Rental Planet Pvt. Ltd.

The predicate FIR, FIR No. 463 dated 24 November 2024, was registered at Police Station Sector 58, Noida, under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The ECIR was recorded on 25 November 2024.

The petitioner was alleged to be a mentor of the Vuenow Group, a shareholder holding 75% in Zebyte Infotech Pvt. Ltd., and its authorised signatory and bank-account initiator/approver.

The petitioner was arrested on 24 February 2025. The prosecution complaint was filed on 24 April 2025. At the time of decision, the petitioner had remained in custody for approximately one year and seven months; the prosecution had cited 52 witnesses and relied upon voluminous documentary material, with material witnesses yet to be examined.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, having regard to the material allegedly connecting him with the laundering of proceeds of crime?

2. Whether the petitioner’s period of incarceration, the filing of the prosecution complaint, and the anticipated delay in trial justified his release on bail under Article 21 of the Constitution?

3. Whether the petitioner’s non-nomination in the predicate FIRs and his assertion that the receipts were remuneration were sufficient to negate his alleged role in the PMLA offence at the stage of bail?

The Court applied Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, under which money laundering includes involvement in processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, including concealment, possession, acquisition, use or projection of such proceeds as untainted property, and is punishable under Section 4.

Section 45 of the PMLA imposes stringent conditions for bail, requiring the Court to have reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

The Court also applied general bail principles, requiring consideration of the gravity of the accusation, the accused’s specific role, the quality of the material collected, the possibility of absconding or tampering with evidence, the stage of investigation or trial, the period of custody and the likelihood of a timely conclusion of trial.

In economic-offence cases, the Court held that greater circumspection is warranted where the material discloses a structured, deliberate and organised financial scheme involving diversion or layering of funds and specific documentary or financial links to the accused.

Article 21’s guarantee of a speedy trial was recognised as a relevant consideration, but prolonged custody was not treated as automatically warranting bail where the allegations were grave, specific and supported by prima facie material.

The Court found that the allegations against the petitioner were not general or omnibus.

The material prima facie indicated his active association with the Vuenow Group, participation in seminars and interaction with investors, substantial shareholding and control over bank accounts of Zebyte Infotech Pvt. Ltd., and receipt of approximately ₹3.24 crore from connected entities.

The Court held that the petitioner’s explanation that the receipts constituted remuneration could not be conclusively accepted at the bail stage because their nature and source, and their possible connection with proceeds of crime, required examination at trial.

His absence from the predicate FIRs did not assist him because money laundering was treated as a distinct offence under the PMLA, with the petitioner’s role to be assessed on the basis of the ED’s material.

The alleged disparity between the cloud-storage capacity represented to investors and the actual operational capacity, together with the alleged use of later investors’ funds to pay earlier investors, furnished prima facie material of a structured financial arrangement involving laundering of proceeds of crime.

Although the petitioner had undergone substantial custody and the prosecution complaint had been filed, 52 prosecution witnesses—including material witnesses—were yet to be examined.

The Court therefore held that the custody period had not reached a stage warranting release solely on the ground of delay, and that the statutory requirements of Section 45 had not been satisfied.

It found prima facie material indicating his active involvement in the affairs and transactions of the Vuenow Group and held that there were no reasonable grounds, at that stage, to believe that he was not guilty of the alleged PMLA offence as required by Section 45.

The petition was accordingly dismissed, with the clarification that the observations made for deciding bail would not affect the merits of the trial; the trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by those observations.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.