)
Sahara chief Subrata Roy’s stay in Tihar jail is set to continue, with the Supreme Court turning down his request for bail on Thursday.
A bench of judges K S Radhakrishnan and J S Khehar began hearing the arguments on the maintainability of a habeas corpus petition filed by Roy, claiming his detention was illegal. The court adjourned the hearing on the matter to March 25.
“The prayer made by Ram Jethmalani, 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 in an order posted on the court’s website.
Radhakrishnan asked, “Do you have any proposal? We are repeatedly asking you.”
Sahara counsels Ram Jethmalani, Rajeev Dhawan and Ravi Shankar Prasad pressed for bail. Jethmalani offered to give a personal undertaking that Roy would be present at the next hearing. Jethmalani said, “Persons who might help him expect something in return. They expect nothing in return from a man in jail. Nobody is going to help him if he is in this condition.”
When he asked the court to specify the amount to be paid, Khehar said, “We don’t know what you can pay. You have to say that.” When the Sahara counsel offered Rs 2,500 crore, Khehar said, “That we have already rejected.”
The bench reiterated the Sahara group hadn’t come up with a proposal so far. “The key is in your hand. You open it, we allow you bail,” Khehar said.
Earlier, Sebi counsel Arvind Datar had argued the writ petition filed by Roy was liable to be dismissed, as all prayers therein were not maintainable. Datar cited several judgments to reiterate the contempt jurisdiction of the court could be used as a tool for compliance of the order.
He also questioned Roy’s plea to be allowed to celebrate Holi. “I am astonished they are seeking release to celebrate Holi. What about the discharge of this court’s orders? What about the 30 million investors?” he asked. “I don’t see what other order could be passed for the man behaving in such a manner…A writ does not lie against an interim order.”
Dhawan and Jethmalani argued this, saying there were procedural and substantive errors in the court’s order detaining Roy. Dhawan said no findings regarding contempt were made by the court and Roy wasn’t given a hearing. The court had gone far beyond the due process of law, he said.
"Errors are sufficiently grievous for your lordships to take back the order and release us," Dhawan said.
