Delhi High Court refuses to extend parole of builder serving 182-yrs jail sentence in graft case

By Dhiraj Kumar
New Delhi [India], February 15 : The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a petition seeking an extension of parole for a convict serving an 182-year jail term in a graft case. The case is related to 344 complaints by home buyers who deposited over Rs 90 lakh for the purchase of plots.
The petitioner pleaded that he had already undergone 7 years in custody, having been sentenced to a total of 182 years in jail in the Execution Case of 2011 by the District Consumer Forum, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
A petition was moved on behalf of the petitioner, Rakesh Kumar for extension of parole for six months in the Execution Case of 2011 arising out of the case of 1998 from the District Consumer Forum, Delhi.
Dismissing the plea, Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the sentence imposed cannot be escaped and parole cannot be endlessly continued merely on the ground that efforts are being made by the petitioner to arrange the funds for settling the cases with plot buyers.
"This would be contrary to the scheme for grant of furlough and parole provided under Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The 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, "the High Court observed in the judgement of February 13.
Proceedings and orders passed by the District Consumer Forum are not a subject matter of challenge before this Court and the present petition only relates to the extension of parole, which is governed by Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, the High Court said.
The petition was opposed by Additional Standing Counsel, Yasir Rauf Ansari.
The petitioner is stated to have been released on parole through an order dated September 13, 2019, by the High Court, which was extended from time to time given his assurance to settle the claims.
The last order was passed on January 10, this year, extending the parole granted on July 10, 2023, during the pendency of this petition, until the next date of hearing.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was expected to receive compensation for land acquired by the Ghaziabad Development Authority, which would be sufficient to cover the interests of plot buyers, excluding those whose cases have already been settled by the petitioner.
It was also stated that Proceedings have been initiated in this regard at Allahabad
High Court and parole are sought to be extended to enable the petitioner to pursue the litigation proceedings and arrange the funds.
It was also contended that grave prejudice will be caused if the petitioner is not released on parole, as he may not be able to follow up on the legal proceedings for arranging the amount.
The order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum District Forum on February 17 reflects that 344 complaints were filed against the respondents therein, including petitioner Rakesh Kumar. Tirupati Associates/Tirupati Builders, Rakesh Kumar Dua and Rajinder Mittal were directed to pay the amount due along with interest at the rate of 18 percent annually, along with Rs. 20,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as the cost of litigation, to each complainant, failing which action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act was proposed to be taken.
Appeals of the petitioner were dismissed by the State Commission since the principal amount deposited by 344 complainants, amounting to Rs 90,79,396.88, was stated to have been grafted, which was deposited for the purchase of plots.
Since the orders/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 to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each in 20 cases, in which the principal amount paid by the complainants exceeded Rs 50,000 and six months of simple imprisonment were directed in the other 324 cases.
The sentences were directed to run consecutively. The sentence was also suspended by the Consumer Forum for three months to enable the petitioner and other respondents, to make the payment.