HC refuses to extend parole of realtor sentenced to 182 years in jail

NEW DELHI: Grant of parole is a “privilege” and not a “right” to be extended in routine, the Delhi High Court has observed, while refusing to extend the parole of a realtor who has been avoiding a sentence of 182 years for duping buyers.

The high court said the sentence imposed cannot be escaped and parole endlessly continued merely on the ground that efforts are being made by the man to arrange for funds for settling the cases with plot buyers as this would be contrary to the scheme for grant of furlough and parole provided under Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

"In the present case, the petitioner has been avoiding the execution of legal sentences for years together without even preferring the applications before the competent authority for extension of grant of parole in accordance with Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

“The automatic extension of parole by way of writ petitions, which has continued for about 04 years, cannot be considered in routine, ignoring the provisions of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018,” Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said.

The high court’s order came while dismissing the petition by Rakesh Kumar of Tirupati Associates who sought extension of parole for six months. The high court said, “Grant of parole is a privilege and not a right to be extended in routine for the periods over and above as specified in the Rules only in exceptional circumstances”.

According to the petitioner, he has already served seven years in custody, having been sentenced to 182 years in jail by a consumer forum in an execution case instituted by an association representing the plot buyers.

Kumar submitted he was released on parole by a September 13, 2019 order of the high court which was extended from time to time in view of his assurance to settle the claims. The last such order was passed on January 10 this year.

His counsel claimed the petitioner was expected to receive compensation for the land acquired by the Ghaziabad Development Authority which would be sufficient to cover the interests of plot buyers excluding those whose cases he has already settled.

He sought extension of parole to enable him to pursue legal proceedings at the Allahabad High Court and to arrange for funds.

According to the details of the 1998 case before the district consumer forum, 344 complaints were filed against the builder firm and its associates who were directed to pay the amount due along with interest and Rs 20,000 compensation and Rs 500 as cost of litigation to each complainant.

The principal amount deposited by the 344 complainants with the builder for purchase of plots was Rs 90.79 lakh.

Since the directions of the consumer forum, upheld by the appellate forum, were not complied with, the petitioner was sentenced under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each in 20 cases where the principal amount paid by the complainants exceeded Rs 50,000. He was sentenced to further six months simple imprisonment in 324 other cases and the sentences were directed to run consecutively.

The high court observed that proceedings and orders passed by the district consumer forum are not a subject matter of challenge before it and the petition only relates to extension of parole, which is governed by Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.