Patna HC issues order for production of Subrata Roy, SC stays order

Patna/New Delhi, May 14 (IANS) The Patna High Court on Friday directed the Bihar DGP to produce Sahara Group Chairman Subrata Roy Sahara before the court by May 16, but the Supreme Court stayed the order.

A bench of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice J.B. Pardiwala stayed the high court order after senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing Roy, appeared before court through video conferencing and pointed out that the single judge bench of the high court has passed perverse orders against Roy in the previous hearings on April 27, May 11, May 12 and May 13.

"The petitioner Subrata Roy Sahara is neither a party nor has any allegation been made against him, still a single judge bench of Patna High Court asked him to physically appear before the court. The single judge bench has made certain observations in the interim order about the payment of the depositors in schemes launched by the Sahara group of companies," he said.

"The repayment of the depositors case is already pending in the Supreme Court against Sahara group of companies versus SEBI. Hence, the single bench judge of Patna High Court cannot ask my client (Subrata Roy) to submit a payment plan before it," he argued.

Sibal also pointed out that a hearing took place in the single bench judge of Justice Sandeep Kumar on May 12 where Roy's counsel said that his client had filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court on May 10 but since one of the judges recused himself, the matter was mentioned again on May 11 and May 12. However, the single bench judge did not accept the submissions and directed him to physically appear before the court on Friday at 10.30 am.

As Roy did not appear before the Patna high court, Justice Sandeep Kumar directed the Bihar DGP to produce him on May 16 at 10.30 am before court, and to take assistance from Uttar Pradesh Police and Delhi Police for this.

The Supreme Court then stayed the high court order and directed the Bihar DGP not to act upon any directions given by a single judge bench.

Since Roy had not heeded various court directions to appear, Justice Sandeep Kumar made strong remarks against him and said that Roy is not above law and will have to physically appear before the court.

Though his lawyer tried to cover up his absence citing his old age (74), illness and security threat, but the judge refused to accept it and asked him to appear before it.