The Supreme Court Today (Sep 1) extended the interim bail of convict Vikas Yadav in the 2002 Nitish Katara murder case by one more week. The extension came after his lawyer cited marriage reasons, though Katara’s mother opposed the claim.
Delhi High Court has sought replies from the Centre, Delhi Govt, and others on Vikas Yadav’s plea seeking remission of his 25-year sentence in the 2002 Nitish Katara murder case. Yadav also sought interim bail citing his upcoming marriage on September 5.
The Supreme Court of India has extended Vikas Yadav’s interim bail by two weeks to care for his ailing mother, who recently underwent surgery. Yadav, serving a 25-year sentence for the 2002 Nitish Katara murder, received bail extensions due to his mother’s critical health. The court will review the situation again after two weeks.
Today, On 24th April, The Supreme Court has granted interim bail to a convict in the Nitish Katara murder case until May 8. The bail was allowed so he could visit and take care of his sick mother.
Today, On 15th April, The Supreme Court criticised the Uttar Pradesh and Delhi governments for delaying the formation of a medical board for Vikas Yadav’s sick mother. The bench warned that its soft tone in orders should not be misunderstood, stressing that fairness from the State is essential.
New Delhi: Today, 3rd March, The Supreme Court directed the Delhi government to decide within two weeks on granting remission to Sukhdev Yadav, also known as Pehalwan. He is currently serving a 20-year jail term without remission in the 2002 Nitish Katara murder case.
Vikas Yadav, serving life for the 2002 murder of Nitish Katara, seeks a three-week furlough from the Delhi High Court. His plea cites 22 years of custody, a clean record, and deprivation of social ties. Previous furlough requests were denied due to reported misconduct during imprisonment, challenging his rehabilitation claims.
Three-judge bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna to hear rare case of judicial fraud involving a rape complaint. Alleged impersonator claims innocence, raising questions about document authenticity. Case linked to high-profile murder and political ties. Supreme Court demands new affidavits and emphasizes the need to verify legal documents. Critical concerns about judicial integrity highlighted.
