- Srinivasan now targetted by Bishen Singh Bedi, Mohinder Amarnath, others over IPL spot-fixing scandalSubrata Roy's Sahara group makes fresh proposal to refund Rs 20,000 crDeposit Rs 10,000 crore to get bail cleared: Supreme Court to jailed Sahara group chief Subrata RoySupreme Court orders BSES discoms to pay dues to Gencos
The Sahara group Thursday told the Supreme Court it was “virtually impossible” to deposit Rs 10000 crore so as to get its chief Subrata Roy freed from jail and also raised the accusation of “bias” and “prejudice” against him.
A failure by the group to meet the bail condition would force Roy and two other directors to cool their heels in Delhi's Tihar Jail for at least one more week since the court will now take up the matter Thursday next week.
“The task you (court) have given to us is virtually impossible to achieve. Conditions should not be so onerous that they become unconstitutional, as has happened in this case...sending them to jail was a void order passed in flagrant violation of the Constitution. It is an order with reasonable apprehension of bias against Sahara and concerned persons,” said Sahara counsel.
They said that the order of judicial custody was “terribly wrong” and violated civil liberties without giving affected persons even a chance to be heard.
“Our custody today stands without being held guilty of any charges; without a notice; without a hearing. Our clients are in custody for 23 days now and are being punished without any charge having been established against them. There is a reasonable apprehension that this bench is prejudiced,” the counsel told a bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and J S Khehar.
The counsel urged the judges on the bench to either acknowledge they had committed a mistake and recall their detention order of March 4, or send the matter to some other bench for adjudication.
They complained how the bench had shot down their previous proposal on repayment schedule “without looking at the offers objectively.” The counsel said they came with the proposals best to their financial capabilities, only to be summarily thrown out by the bench.
“Your Lordships order of March 4 have recorded that there existed serious doubts over existence of any genuine investors. According to you, all investors are bogus. Then you rely on 'fact finding authorities' to check our veracity when they are none. The very foundation of the order is not correct. The order discloses a proclivity that we are wrong and we are not paying despite our ability to pay. This order cannot stand,” said the counsel.
They urged the judges to release the matter from their bench so that the “illegality