Delhi: The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea requesting an extension of parole for a convict serving an extensive 182-year prison sentence in connection to a graft case involving 344 complaints from home buyers who collectively invested over Rs. 90 lakh for plot purchases.
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, who has already served seven years in custody following a conviction related to the Execution Case of 2011 by the District Consumer Forum at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, sought parole extension for six months pertaining to the same Execution Case.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, presiding over the case, dismissed the plea, emphasizing that the imposed sentence cannot be extended and parole cannot be indefinitely extended solely based on efforts to settle cases with plot buyers. According to the Delhi Prison Rules of 2018, is a privilege granted under exceptional circumstances, not a routine extension.
Read also: West Bengal| Supreme Court Terminates Trials Over Post-Poll Violence
The High Court clarified that challenges against the orders passed by the District Consumer Forum are not admissible in their jurisdiction. The focus of the petition, was solely on the extension of parole, governed by the Delhi Prison Rules of 2018.
The Additional Counsel, Yasir Rauf Ansari, opposed the petition during proceedings.
Rakesh Kumar was granted parole initially on September 13, 2019, which was subsequently extended multiple times due to his commitments to settle outstanding claims with the buyers. His legal counsel argued that Kumar was awaiting compensation from the Ghaziabad Development Authority for acquired land, which he intended to utilize for settling the claims.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum’s order dated February 17 stipulated that 344 complaints were lodged against respondents, including Rakesh Kumar. The forum directed compensation payments to complainants under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act were proposed.
Kumar’s appeals were dismissed by the State Commission due to alleged misappropriation of funds, resulting in his sentencing under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. He was directed to serve consecutive prison terms for failing to comply with forum orders regarding compensation payments.
