Refusing to grant any relief to Subrata Roy, the Supreme Court on Thursday asked Sahara Group to come out with a new proposal for refunding `20,000 crore to investors and dashed all his hopes to be with his family on Holi.
The court said it would consider his bail plea only if the group came out with a new proposal for refunding the money and turned down its offer of paying `2,500 crore now and the rest in instalments, which was rejected earlier too.
“We will consider if there is a new proposal,” a Bench of Justice K S Radhakrishnan and J S Khehar observed at the end of the two-hour hearing.
Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani pleaded for bail so that Roy could be with his family for Holi.
“The prayer made by Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, for bail cannot be considered at this juncture, since no written proposal for payment in compliance with the directions issued by this court has been made so far,” the Bench said and posted the hearing to March 25.
“We have repeatedly been saying ‘what is your proposal’. Tell us how much you can pay,” the Bench said adding “the key is in your hands”.
Jethmalani, however, said it wasn’t possible to raise more money saying that nobody would come to Roy’s help till he remained in jail.
The Special Bench conducted the hearing, during which Roy’s counsel submitted that his detention was “illegal and unconstitutional”, amid tight security.
The Bench refused to grant any relief saying that it had given Roy enough time in the last one and half years and asked the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) counsel to argue on the maintainability of petition.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan, appearing for the group, said there was a “substantive and procedural” mistake in the March 4 order by which Roy was sent to jail.
He said there was a grave error on the part of the Bench in passing such an order in which the bail bond was fixed at `22,500 crore.
Roy in his petition had submitted that detaining him was “purely illegal, contrary to the procedure prescribed by law and against the principles of natural justice”.