E-Paper
Nitish Katara murder: SC extends interim bail of Vikas Yadav by one week
Yadav had approached the top court against an August 22 order of the Delhi high court which refused to grant an extension of his interim bail granted by the top court on July 29
The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended the interim bail of Nitish Katara murder convict Vikas Yadav by a week on a day when his bail period was coming to an end.
Vikas is the son of Uttar Pradesh politician DP Yadav. His cousin Vishal Yadav was also punished for the kidnapping and murder of business executive Katara.
The duo was against Katara’s alleged relationship with Bharti Yadav, sister of Vikas.
Vishal is undergoing a 25-year fixed sentence without remission for the 2002 murder of Nitish Katara.
Also Read: Release prisoners after they complete jail sentence: Supreme Court
Yadav had approached the top court against an August 22 order of the Delhi high court which refused to grant an extension of his interim bail granted by the top court on July 29. He sought extension of bail on account of his marriage on September 5. However, the high court doubted whether it had power to extend the interim bail granted by the top court and posted his matter for further hearing on September 2.
Taking up his appeal, a bench of justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih prima facie agreed with the view taken by the high court and noted that the judges who passed the July 29 order are still present.
Justice Datta was of the view that the matter should ideally be heard by the bench headed by justice MM Sundresh, who passed the July 29 order extending Yadav’s interim bail till August 26 while asking him to approach the high court for any further extension.
The bench headed by justice Datta said, “If any relief is to be granted, it has to be by the Supreme Court… high court seems prima facie justified that once this court has affirmed the decision that he (Yadav) will not be entitled to remission,it would not have jurisdiction.”
As his bail was expiring today (August 26), the bench said, “We extend the interim bail by a week.”
Senior advocate S Gurukrishna Kumar appearing for Yadav told the court that when the July 29 order was passed, he had argued this point. However, the top court directed Yadav to approach the high court. He said that the interim bail granted by the July 29 order was on account of his mother’s ill health.
However, the plea for extension of interim bail was sought on the grounds of his marriage. He stated that he even filed a writ petition challenging the judgment of the top court of October 2016 by which his conviction was upheld with a rider on his life term sentence that he will undergo 25 years of sentence without remission. This writ petition was dismissed by the top court on July 29 claiming that the same issue cannot be decided under Article 32. The same order allowed Yadav to raise this question in the high court.
On Tuesday, the top court seemed to disagree with this view.
It said, “The High court cannot go beyond the Supreme Court order. So far as SC is concerned, the appeal has been dismissed in October 2016 and your review petition has also been dismissed. Even under Article 32, we cannot touch this order.”
The court told Yadav’s lawyer that it was not open for his client to file a writ petition.
“After review being dismissed, you should have filed a curative petition. You filed a petition under Article 32. You created your own problem.”
When Gurukrishna Kumar said that these observations would prejudice his petition before the high court, the bench responded, “Why burden the high courts with this problem. Do not expect the high courts to violate the law.”
Yadav, aged 54 has completed 23 years of his sentence and had told the Delhi high court that he required bail for his marriage and to arrange the fine amount of ₹54 lakh which was imposed on him at the time of sentencing.
The high court bench of justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notice to Centre and the Delhi government along with Nitish Katara’s mother Nilam Katara on his plea, posting it for hearing on September 2.
Nilam Katara, who opposed Yadav’s bail in the high court had argued that there is no provision for interim bail to a convict. Instead, her lawyer argued that convicts may seek parole or furlough, while interim bail is outside the statutory framework.
On July 29, the Supreme Court had released Sukhdev Yadav - one of the convicts in the Katara murder - after he completed his 20 years fixed sentence without any remission. Besides Vikas Yadav, the other convicts are his cousin Vishal and Sukhdev Yadav.
