The Delhi High Court has emphasized that the granting of parole is a "privilege" rather than an automatic "right," particularly in cases where individuals are evading lengthy sentences for fraudulent activities. This stance was taken as the court declined to extend the parole of a real estate developer who faces a cumulative sentence of 182 years for defrauding purchasers.

According to the Delhi High Court, the imposition of the sentence cannot be evaded, and parole cannot be continuously extended solely based on efforts to arrange funds for settling cases with plot buyers. Such actions would contradict the framework established for the granting of furlough and parole as outlined in the Delhi Prison Rules of 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 ruling was issued in response to the petition filed by Rakesh Kumar of Tirupati Associates, who sought a six-month extension of his parole. The court emphasized that the grant of parole is a privilege, not a routine right, and should only be extended beyond the specified periods outlined in the Rules in exceptional circumstances.

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, stated that he has already spent seven years in custody after being sentenced to 182 years in jail by a consumer forum in an execution case brought by an association representing plot buyers. Kumar further submitted that he was granted parole by a High Court order dated September 13, 2019, which was subsequently extended multiple times due to his commitment to settle the claims. The most recent extension was granted on January 10 of this year.

The petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner is receiving compensation for land acquired by the Ghaziabad Development Authority, which would be adequate to satisfy the interests of plot buyers, excluding those whose cases he has already resolved. Seeking an extension of parole, the petitioner aimed to pursue legal proceedings at the Allahabad High Court and arrange funds.

In the 1998 case before the district consumer forum, 344 complaints were lodged against the builder firm and its associates. They were instructed to pay the outstanding amount along with interest, as well as ₹20,000 in compensation and ₹500 as litigation costs to each complainant. 

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 ₹ 50,000. He was sentenced to further six months simple imprisonment in 324 other cases and the sentences were directed to run consecutively.