Delhi High Court Deliberates on Vikas Yadav's Furlough Petition

The Delhi High Court is currently deliberating on the furlough petition of Vikas Yadav, who is serving a lengthy sentence for his role in the Nitish Katara murder case. His request was previously denied by the Delhi government, leading to a legal challenge. The court heard arguments from various parties, including the complainant and witnesses, regarding the implications of granting furlough. Concerns about witness safety and the legitimacy of the claims against Yadav were also raised. This case highlights the complexities of legal proceedings involving high-profile individuals and the judicial system's response to such petitions.
 | 
Delhi High Court Deliberates on Vikas Yadav's Furlough Petition

Court Decision on Furlough Request

On Monday, the Delhi High Court reserved its decision regarding the furlough application submitted by convicted individual Vikas Yadav. Yadav, who is serving a 25-year sentence for his involvement in the Nitish Katara murder case, is the son of former MP D.P. Yadav. His request for furlough was previously denied by the Delhi government, prompting him to challenge this rejection.


Justice Ravinder Dudejia heard arguments from Vikas Yadav, the state government, witness Ajay Katara, and complainant Neelam Katara before deciding to reserve the ruling. Ajay Katara's attorney, Advocate Sanchar Anand, expressed concerns about the ongoing threats faced by the witness, stating that he has been falsely implicated in various cases.


The court found no grounds to grant furlough to the convicted individual. Senior lawyer Vikas Pahwa represented Yadav, countering the claims made against him. He highlighted that for the past two decades, ten security personnel have been assigned to protect the witness, questioning how someone could be falsely implicated in such a scenario.


Previously, it was argued that Vikas Yadav has been in custody for the last 23 years. It was also noted that an application was submitted to jail authorities on September 22, citing the need for furlough based on recent marriage and the associated social and marital responsibilities, referencing his good conduct during over 23 years of imprisonment under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.