New Delhi: New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended Sahara chief Subrata Roy’s police custody in New Delhi till the next hearing.
Expressing displeasure that Sahara did not have any proper refund policy, the court told Sahara to come back with a concrete proposal as to it would refund the 20,000 crore collected from thousands of small investors in towns and villages.
The court said that if a common man fails to pay back Rs. 10,000 he is sent to jail, and since Roy owes crores there is no reason why his custody should not be extended.
For his part, Roy tried selling the Sahara story telling the court, 'ours is a beautiful human story' only to be snapped back with 'we will love you if you make payments'.
Earlier, seeking pardon in the name of employees, Roy told the court, "With folded hands, I am begging you to save us. Give us time." He vowed that "every direction" of the court would be followed.
The Court accepted the Sahara chief's unconditional apology for failing to appear before the apex court after repeated summons.
Roy reportedly told the court that his 92-year-old mother was seriously ill and he was not lying.
Meanwhile, a man was detained for throwing ink at Roy in the Supreme Court premises. The protestor says he threw ink because Roy is a thief and stole from the public.
The protestor, who identified himself as Manoj Sharma, says he is an advocate from Gwalior. Sharma after attacking Roy unbuttoned his shirt and confessed committing the act before the media persons gathered in court premises.
Roy was arrested by the UP police on February 28. The apex court on February 26 had issued a non-bailable arrest warrant against Roy for failing to appear before it in person as directed by the court.
Taking serious view of Roy's non-appearance, the apex court said: "The arm of this court is very long. We will issue warrants. This is the Supreme Court of the land. When other directors are here, why can't he be here?"
Roy said he was absent since he wanted to be with his ailing mother, who is 92.
The Supreme Court had directed the presence of Roy and the three directors of his group firms following their failure to submit to the market regulator title deeds of some of the unencumbered properties.