New Delhi, Oct 21: The Supreme Court today declined to grant any interim relief to Hi-Tech group chairman Tirupati Panigrahi and two others arrested by the economic offence wing of the CID-crime branch of police December 26, 2012, in a Rs 315-crore land scam case.

The bench of justices H.L. Dattu and M.Y. Eqbal asked the accused to prove their bona fides by depositing Rs 315 crore with the Supreme Court registry to enable the court distribute the amount to the people who had invested their money with the group.

The bench kept the bail application moved by the accused for consideration after two months.

“You can prove your bona fides by depositing Rs 315 crore with the Supreme Court registry then we will consider your application,” Justice Dattu, who was heading the bench, observed after senior counsel U.U. Lalit pleaded that the accused be granted interim if not regular bail, to enable them to settle the row.

Besides Tirupati, Madhusudan Panigrahi and another accused had moved the apex court for bail after the same was rejected by the Orissa High Court and the sessions court.

“Mr. Lalit, whatever argument you make will not make us change our decision. So there is no point in arguing,” the bench told the counsel, after which he urged the court to defer it for two months. Accordingly, the court said the matter would come up again in December.

Earlier, additional solicitor general K.V. Viswanathan and state’s standing counsel Shibashish Misra opposed the bail on the ground that they could influence the witnesses if released.

Panigrahi, who is also the managing director of Rajdhani Systems and Estates, was arrested on charges of land fraud. Rajdhani Systems and Estates is a sister concern of Hi-Tech group that runs private medical and engineering colleges, apart from being a leading player in real estate sector.

It was the first high-profile arrest in an alleged land fraud case. Tirupati and Madhusudan Panigrahi were also arrested as Rajdhani Systems and Estates, a company being managed by them, did not deliver plots of land to complainants even after they paid the entire amounts.

Panigrahi and his two associates had moved the high court for bail after the trial court rejected their bail petitions.