The Supreme Court on Thursday told Sahara chief Subrata Roy that payment of Rs10,000 crore was not a bail bond for his release but a part-payment of the total sum to be paid to market regulator SEBI in order to prove his “bonafides”.
While the argument was still underway on Roy’s challenging the March 4 order of the court arresting him and his two directors, Roy came up with a revised offer on Thursday. His senior counsel CA Sundaram reiterated the proposal to pay an upfront amount of Rs2500 crore and the balance Rs2500 crore within three weeks of his release from jail.
The Bench of Justices KS Radhakrishnan and JS Khehar told Roy’s counsel that there was no question of modifying its earlier order to deposit Rs5000 crore in cash and another Rs5000 crore as bank guarantee in order to secure release from jail. When Sundaram sought permission from court to file an application seeking modification of the court’s order, the Bench said that it would neither allow nor restrain Roy from filing any application permissible under law.
The Bench objected when Sundaram termed the revised offer as a condition of bail to secure release of Roy from Tihar Jail. The Bench said, “When a suggestion is made that Rs10,000 crore is a bail bond that will secure release, it is an incorrect statement. It’s not a demand made for release, but its part payment towards fulfillment of payment of principal amount that will show your bonafides for release.”
SEBI counsel Arvind Datar justified the arrest of the Sahara chief providing details of Supreme Court Rules and previous judgments of the Court where persons were sentenced to jail for failing to comply with Court’s orders. Such orders, Datar claimed, were passed when charges of contempt were yet to be decided by Court.
As Sahara chief had violated court’s repeated attempts to secure repayment of over Rs20,000 crore collected by two Sahara firms under a debenture scheme, Datar said, “Nobody contemplated a situation like Sahara where a person would refuse to pay money despite having assets.” He referred to Supreme Court Rules, Rule 2(2) that allowed Court to send a party before it to prison on forming a view that contempt is committed even when the charge of contempt is pending determination.
The bench, while posting the matter for further hearing on April 9 said, “Our order of March 4 (sentencing Roy to prison) was enforcement of our orders and not punishment. We will deal with punishment under the pending contempt proceeding but after our order (of August 31, 2013) is complied with.”