SC allows 3-month furlough to accused in Nitish Katara murder

The order was issued on an appeal filed by Pehelwan, after the Delhi high court refused him a three-week furlough on November 24, 2024

The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the release of Sukhdev Yadav alias Pehelwan, convicted of murder in the Nitish Katara case, on a three-month furlough and directed the trial court to ensure adequate protection for Yadav and a prime witness in the case, while setting conditions for his release.

Dealing with the fresh application moved by the convict, a bench of justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran, sitting during the partial court working days, allowed a furlough of three months after it noted that as of March 19, 2025, the convict had served 20 years of his sentence without any remission. (Representative photo/HT Archive)

The order was issued on an appeal filed by Pehelwan, after the Delhi high court refused him a three-week furlough on November 24, 2024. Furlough is a right available to prisoners, which allows them limited time away from prison to maintain social ties and reintegrate with society.

Dealing with the fresh application moved by the convict, a bench of justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran, sitting during the partial court working days, allowed a furlough of three months after it noted that as of March 9, 2025, the convict had served 20 years of his sentence without any remission.

The trial court had sentenced Pehelwan to life imprisonment for the 2002 murder of Nitish Katara, in which Vikas Yadav, son of former MP DP Yadav, was also convicted. The case pertains to the abduction of Katara from a marriage party on the intervening night of February 16 and 17, 2002, and then killing him over his alleged relationship with Bharti Yadav, Vikas’s sister.

Later, the Delhi high court modified it with the condition that he will undergo 20 years sentence without remission. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in October 2016.

The bench said, “Taking an overall view of the matter, more particularly the factum that petitioner has completed 20 years of uninterrupted incarceration without remission, as ordered by the High Court which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that it is a fit case where petitioner deserves to be released on furlough at least for a limited duration ...that being so, we grant furlough of 3 months from the date of release.”

Senior advocate Siddharth Mridul appearing for the petitioner argued that until the petition seeking release on completion of actual sentence of 20 years is decided by the top court, Pehelwan should be entitled for release on furlough. In an earlier hearing, the court had allowed Pehelwan to amend the petition and seek release on the grounds of completion of 20-year sentence.

Additional solicitor general (ASG) Archana Pathak Dave, appearing for the Delhi government, flagged concerns over the security of the complainant Katara’s mother Nilam Katara.

The court said, “Necessary conditions have to be imposed on the petitioner so that liberty of furlough is not misused. That apart, safety and security of respondents - (complainant Nilam Katara and star witness Ajay Katara) are also required to be protected.”

The court directed Pehelwan to be produced before the trial court within a week to provide for his release and posted the matter for further consideration on July 29. It directed the trial court to impose appropriate terms and conditions “including concerning safety and security of respondents (Nilam and Ajay Katara).”

Advocate Vrinda Bhandari, appearing for Katara’s mother, opposed grant of any relief to Pehelwan, citing a Delhi high court order of April 6, 2025, wherein a judge, hearing Pehelwan’s plea, recused themselves, alleging attempts to influence the court.

The order said, “ While such conduct is highly deplorable and condemnable, there is nothing on record to show whether any enquiry was conducted to find out who had indulged in such reprehensible activity. In the absence thereof, it would not be just and proper to deny relief to the petitioner on that count.”

On April 22, the top court raised concerns over the continuation of Pehelwan’s custody as it was of the view that the high court judgment effectively modifies the life term to a fixed sentence term of 20 years without remission. However, the Delhi government claimed that the sentence has been modified to the extent that while undergoing life sentence, Pehelwan was disentitled to remission for a fixed period of 20 years.

The court had allowed Pehelwan’s lawyer, senior advocate Siddharth Mridul, to amend the petition and seek release on the grounds of completion of 20 20-year sentence. This aspect is yet to be heard.

On March 28, the Sentence Review Board dismissed Pehelwan’s case for premature release claiming that he still carried “potential for committing crime”. The Delhi government alleged he will not be entitled to automatic release on remission after expiry of 20 years, as it would have a bearing on co-convict Vikas Yadav, whose life term sentence was modified on similar terms, fixing an embargo of 25 years for consideration of remission.