▁issued ▁by ▁the ▁entities ▁to ▁claim ▁their ▁money . ▁This ▁gave ▁a ▁valid ▁point ▁to ▁Sah ara ' s ▁argument ▁before ▁courts ▁that ▁it ▁had ▁rep a id ▁most ▁of ▁the ▁invest ors ▁who ▁had ▁come ▁forward ▁to ▁claim ▁the ▁invest ment ▁which ▁they ▁had ▁made ▁in ▁b onds ▁issued ▁by ▁two ▁group ▁companies . ▁ ▁Re ports ▁also ▁suggested ▁that ▁between ▁the ▁time ▁that ▁SE BI ▁first ▁initi ated ▁the ▁inqu iry ▁four ▁years ▁ago ▁and ▁Roy ' s ▁event ual ▁det ention ▁and ▁it ▁is ▁to ▁note ▁that ▁till ▁today ▁there ▁is ▁not ▁a ▁single ▁charge ▁against ▁him , ▁there ▁has ▁not ▁been ▁a ▁single ▁instance ▁of ▁an ▁invest or ▁in ▁either ▁of ▁the ▁two ▁Sah ara ▁fir ms ▁under ▁watch ▁actually ▁fil ing ▁a ▁police ▁compla int ▁or ▁going ▁to ▁court . ▁ ▁He ▁was ▁granted ▁inter im ▁b ail ▁by ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁on ▁ 2 6 ▁March ▁ 2 0 1 4 ▁on ▁the ▁condition ▁that ▁he ▁would ▁depos it ▁the ▁huge ▁b ail ▁amount ▁of ▁R s ▁ 1 0 , 0 0 0 ▁cr ore . ▁Sub r ata ▁was ▁eventually ▁taken ▁into ▁jud icial ▁cust ody ▁and ▁sent ▁to ▁T ih ar ▁j ail , ▁along ▁with ▁two ▁other ▁Sah ara ▁direct ors , ▁on ▁ 4 ▁March ▁ 2 0 1 4 ▁for ▁failing ▁to ▁depos it ▁R s ▁ 1 0 , 0 0 0 ▁cr ore ▁with ▁SE BI . ▁In ▁T ih ar ▁j ail , ▁Sub r ata ▁un success