Nitish Katara murder case: SC grants convict Vikas Yadav 10-day furlough

Yadav approached the court seeking furlough for four weeks citing the fact that this period is given to convicts to integrate with society and revive social ties.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday ordered temporary release of convict Vikas Yadav in the Nitish Katara murder case, granting him furlough for 10 days beginning Tuesday with a direction to surrender by May 22.

The bench pointed out how influential persons in the country convicted of serious crimes are getting furlough.

Serving a fixed sentence of 25 years imprisonment without remission, Yadav approached the court seeking furlough for four weeks citing the fact that this period is given to convicts to integrate with society and revive social ties. With his 25-year sentence set to get over by May 2027, he sought time to spend with family as he got married last year. He also needed time to arrange a fine of ₹50 lakh required to be deposited as part of his original sentence.

A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said that the legal issue has to be determined whether a convict denied remission by the top court is entitled to furlough. However, it noted a precedent where the top court on February 27 granted furlough to Yadav from February 28 to March 7, which he had complied with.

“We find that having regard to the earlier precedent and pending consideration of the matter, the petitioner shall be entitled to release on furlough from May 12, 2026 to May 22, 2026. The petitioner shall report back to the concerned prison authority on May 22 by 5pm,” the order said.

The Delhi government, represented by advocate Bhakti Vardhan Singh, submitted that under the Delhi Prison Rules, Yadav should not be entitledto furlough as his right to remission is curtailed by the top court for the entire fixed sentence period of 25 years.

The complainant in the case and the victim’s mother, Neelam Katara, also opposed grant of furlough to the petitioner. Senior advocate Abhinav Mukherjee said, “Furlough is granted for good conduct. He is accused of threatening a judge who was to take up his appeal in the high court of Delhi.”

The bench pointed out how influential persons in the country convicted of serious crimes are getting furlough. “What is your apprehension,” the court asked Singh, while observing, “A person like Gurmeet Ram Rahim (of Dera Sacha Sauda) has been granted furlough how many times. He is convicted in cases of rape and murder. Just because he is influential.” The self-styled godman has obtained furlough 13 times between 2020 till date.

Senior advocate S Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for Yadav, said that the complainant and state have fiercely opposed every time he has approached the top court for release on furlough. “In a year, he will be completing his sentence. He needs to revive his social ties, arrange money for the fine to be deposited, and start his married life,” Krishnakumar said. He cited the February 27 order to show how furlough was granted pending consideration of the legal issue of his entitlement.

Yadav, son of former Parliamentarian DP Yadav, is undergoing punishment for the crime which took place in 2002. Along with him, his cousin Vishal and an accomplice Sukhdev Pehelwan have been convicted for Nitish Katara’s murder as the victim was in a love relationship with Yadav’s sister

Yadav was initially denied furlough by the jail authorities on October 29, 2025, a decision he challenged before the HC. He claimed eligibility under Rule 1223 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 which states that in order to be eligible for furlough, the prisoner must have good conduct in the prison for the past three years, should not be a habitual offender and must be a citizen of India.

The HC upheld the order rejecting furlough on February 11 and said, “This court finds no arbitrariness, illegality, or violation of constitutional rights in the order dated October 29 or the corrigendum dated December 1, 2025.”

Katara’s lawyer has consistently opposed the grant of furlough claiming that the court must first consider his eligibility for such a relief.

Last year, he obtained interim bail on April 24 on account of his mother’s illness and kept extending it till the top court directed him to surrender. Before the high court, he sought furlough for his marriage and the complainant had produced evidence to show that he had already been married.