Non-Filing of Chargesheet Weakens PMLA Case; Court Grants Bail to Rohan Harmalkar

Highlighting that the failure of the Goa Police to file a chargesheet against accused Rohan Harmalkar in alleged land-grabbing cases for nearly four years undermined the foundation of the money-laundering allegations, the High Court granted him bail in a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The High Court underscored that the constitutional safeguards guaranteeing personal liberty and a speedy trial override the stringent twin conditions for bail prescribed under the PMLA.

In its order, the High Court observed that the predicate offences had been registered as far back as 2022–23. However, despite the substantial delay, the prosecution had failed to file a chargesheet.

The court noted that no satisfactory reasons had been provided for the continued failure to submit the chargesheet.

The High Court also highlighted that assurances had previously been given by both the Public Prosecutor representing the State of Goa and the Enforcement Directorate that the chargesheet in the predicate offences would be filed promptly and that the PMLA proceedings would be concluded within four months. Despite these assurances, the chargesheet had not been filed, and the PMLA prosecution had not progressed beyond the issuance of summonses to witnesses.

Rejecting the ED’s contention that the money-laundering case could proceed and conclude independently within a reasonable period, the High Court reiterated the well-settled legal position that a PMLA trial cannot reach a final determination until the trial in the predicate offence has concluded and the offences have been proved.

The court remarked that, since the trial in the predicate offence could not realistically begin in the near future in the absence of even a chargesheet, there was no prospect of the money-laundering trial concluding within a reasonable period.

The High Court emphasised that the investigating agencies’ failure to file a chargesheet in the underlying predicate offences for nearly four years substantially weakened the presumption of guilt under the PMLA. Consequently, it held that constitutional intervention was necessary to safeguard the applicant’s fundamental rights under Article 21 against indefinite incarceration.

Allowing the bail application, the High Court directed Harmalkar to furnish a personal-recognisance bond of ₹1,00,000, along with two local sureties for the same amount.