Sahara Refund: Patna High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Agent Booked For Non-Repayment Of Maturity Amount To Depositor

The prosecution alleged that Kumar, in his capacity as an agent of Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited, failed to repay the matured amount owed to depositors, including the complainants. The allegations were related to the Maturity Benefit Payment under Policy No.00050569, concerning the life of the Life Assured Client (complainant).

The petitioner's counsel acknowledged Kumar's agency role during the purchase of the policy by the complainant. However, it was argued that the entire maturity amount had not been returned to the complainant within the stipulated time frame due to the Society's account being frozen by SEBI and various litigations that arose.

The Counsel highlighted that the matter of legitimate dues disbursement was addressed by the Apex Court in a previous case Pinak Pani Mohanty Vs. Union of India & Ors. The counsel informed that the Apex Court's order directed the transfer of Rs. 5,000 crores from the "Sahara-SEBI Refund Account" to the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies for transparent disbursement among genuine depositors, as per proper identification and claim verification procedures.

In accordance with the Apex Court's directive and subsequent notification from the Ministry of Cooperation dated 20.06.2023, the petitioner's Counsel further informed the Court that steps were being taken to ensure repayment of the matured amount to the complainant and other depositors.

The Zonal Chief of Sahara India, Bihar, reportedly instructed all branch managers and functionaries to assist in facilitating the payment process for matured amounts as per the Apex Court's judgment and the government notification.

The counsel submitted that in the present case, the net payable amount was Rs.51,875/- and the petitioner had undertaken to provide proper assistance to the complainant in uploading the requisite documents and papers as required on the Portal.

On the other hand, the prosecution's representative, Ajit Kumar, opposed the pre-arrest bail during the hearing.

After considering the arguments from both parties, the Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.