Delhi High Court rejected Nitish Katara murder convict Vikas Yadav’s plea for three-week furlough, upholding prison authorities and finding no arbitrariness or rights violation. Justice Ravinder Dudeja held the Director General of Prisons acted lawfully, ensuring constitutional compliance nationwide.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court dismissed a request from Vikas Yadav, a convict in the Nitish Katara murder case, for a three-week furlough.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja stated that there was no arbitrariness or infringement of Yadav’s constitutional rights in the decision made by the Director General of Prisons to deny his release from incarceration.
The court stated while delivering its verdict,
“In view of the above, this court finds no arbitrariness, illegality or violation of constitutional rights in the order dated October 29 or the corrigendum dated December 1, 2025. The petition is accordingly dismissed,”
A detailed copy of the judgment is still pending.
ALSO READ: Nitish Katara Murder Case || Supreme Court Grants 3-Month Furlough to Sukhdev Yadav
Nitish Katara, a 25-year-old business executive, was abducted from a marriage party on the night of February 16 and 17, 2002 and murdered by Vikas Yadav and his relatives of politician DP Yadav due to his relationship with Bharti Yadav, Vikas’s sister.
The crime was labeled an “honour killing,” rooted in issues of caste and family honor. Katara’s charred remains were discovered near Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. After several years of trials and appeals, both Vikas and Vishal Yadav received life sentences.
In his application, Vikas Yadav contested the DG Prisons’ decision to reject his plea for release, claiming he has served more than 23 years of a fixed 25-year sentence for life imprisonment.
In May 2008, the trial court convicted Vikas Yadav, Vishal Yadav, and their accomplice, contract killer Sukhdev Pehelwan, for kidnapping and burning Katara alive, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court in February 2015 upheld the life sentences for Vikas and Vishal, specifying a 30-year term without remission, while Sukhdev received a 25-year sentence without remission.
The Supreme Court adjusted Vikas and Vishal’s sentences in July 2016 to 25 years without remission and modified Sukhdev’s sentence to 20 years without remission. On July 29, the Supreme Court ordered Sukhdev’s immediate release but dismissed Vikas’s petition regarding the requirement to serve 25 years without remission, allowing him to approach the Delhi High Court instead. In August 2017, the Supreme Court also rejected Yadav’s plea for a review of the 2016 order.
Yadav had approached the High Court in response to the prison authorities’ decision on October 29, 2025, which denied his request for furlough. The prison officials defended their decision by highlighting the severity of the offense, the harshness of the sentence imposed, and concerns that the convict might flee the country, disturb public order, or inflict irreversible harm on the victim’s family.
In his petition, argued by senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, Yadav claimed that his furlough application was rejected arbitrarily without proper consideration of the fact that he had previously been granted interim bail by the Supreme Court for four and a half months due to his mother’s medical condition, followed by an extension for his marriage.
The petition further noted that Yadav had been in continuous custody for 23 years without being granted furlough, now seeking release to spend time with his wife after his recent marriage. He also argued that he met the eligibility criteria under Rule 1223 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which allows furlough for prisoners exhibiting good conduct.
The Delhi Police, represented by special prosecutor Rajesh Mahajan and advocate Jyoti Babbar, as well as Neelam Katara, represented by advocate Vrinda Bhandari, previously informed the bench that Yadav was ineligible for furlough under the Detailed Project Report (DPR). They emphasized that furlough is not an absolute right of prisoners and that there was sufficient evidence to justify his continued detention.
Mahajan pointed out that the DPR requires prisoners to have earned three annual good conduct remissions, but Yadav could not receive such remissions because his sentencing order included a fixed 25-year term without remission.
Neelam Katara asserted that the DPR also necessitates demonstrable good behavior and a clean record, which Yadav lacked. Represented by advocate Vrinda Bhandari, she alleged that Yadav’s conduct included the misuse of judicial processes and actions that disqualified him from furlough, asserting he showed no real signs of reform.
Bhandari further alleged that Yadav attempted to influence sitting judges, falsified documents, violated bail conditions, secured undue advantages, and filed false cases even while incarcerated. She claimed that since the murder, he had repeatedly broken the law, obstructed the trial, misled the judiciary, pressured witnesses, and the public prosecutor, and that after his conviction, he made over 100 unauthorized hospital visits in collusion with prison and healthcare authorities.
In addition to seeking furlough, Yadav had also submitted a separate petition for his release from jail.
CASE TITLE: Vikas Yadav v. The State NCT of Delhi Through Secretary & Ors
