LUCKNOW, Feb. 16 -- The Enforcement Directorate (ED) will continue its money laundering investigation against senior IAS officer Abhishek Prakash's alleged aide and businessman Nikant Jain despite the Allahabad high court quashing the FIR that had accused him of demanding a "5% cut" to facilitate approval of an Rs.8,000-crore solar project under Invest UP, confirmed senior ED officials. While granting relief to Jain in the bribery and extortion case, the court's order does not affect the ongoing probe initiated by the ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Officials indicated that the agency will now base its investigation on five other FIRs registered against Jain in different districts. "According to information placed before the court, separate cases are pending against Jain in Etah, Meerut, Wazirganj police station in Lucknow, and Matsena in Firozabad. These cases will serve as the predicate offences for the ED's continuing probe," explained an ED official. Earlier, on August 6, the ED had 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. The Allahabad high court, while quashing the FIR related to the alleged bribery demand in the Invest UP-linked solar project, pointed out significant procedural lapses in the police investigation. The complainant reportedly retracted his allegations before the court. However, the court also observed that the police had failed to prepare a mandatory site plan of the alleged place of occurrence. Although the police stated that the complainant did not cooperate, the court noted that investigators should have completed the exercise through alternative means. The order highlighted the absence of evidence to substantiate 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. The court also took serious note of the fact that the investigating officer had allegedly recorded the accused's statement himself, calling it a significant procedural irregularity. According to the police's own findings cited in court, the delay in the project's progress was attributed 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 due to the absence of these mandatory reports and not because of any intervention by Jain. The court further observed that under Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is essential to prove that an undue advantage was offered or promised to influence a public servant. It found no material evidence supporting such an allegation in this case. Despite the setback in the primary FIR, the ED has maintained that its investigation will proceed independently based on other registered offences. Officials said documentary evidence collected during earlier searches and statements recorded during questioning will be examined in light of the additional FIRs. The agency has not yet indicated a timeline for the next phase of the probe....