
Nitish Katara murder: SC allows release of one convict, extends interim bail to another
In his petition, Pehelwan sought release, contending that the judgment of the top court convicting him in October 2016 had imposed a fixed-term sentence of 20 years without remission.
A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and KV Vishwanathan accepted the argument and held that as per the 2016 decision, the 20-year sentence ended in March. 'In these circumstances, he is entitled to release…He shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case,' the court said in its order.
The contentions of senior advocate Siddharth Mridul, representing Pehelwan, were challenged by the Delhi government, represented by additional solicitor general (ASG) Archana Pathak Dave, who said that the judgment only says that he would be eligible to be considered for remission after a 20-year sentence. She said that the life sentence will continue as a punishment in his case.
The bench said, 'Once court has quantified a sentence without remission for 20 years, there is no sentence beyond 20 years.'
The ASG pointed out that the Sentence Review Board (SRB) has considered his case for remission and dismissed it on March 28, on the grounds that he has 'potential for committing crime.'
The bench took exception to the SRB order and said, 'How can SRB sit over judgment of this court? Once a convict has completed a sentence, he is entitled to release. You are mixing it up with remission... If this is the attitude of the government, then every convict will die in jail even if he has completed the sentence.'
Meanwhile, another bench of the Supreme Court dismissed Vikas Yadav's petition questioning how the top court could direct him to remain in jail for a period of 25 years without remission. He had approached the top court in 2022, after he had undergone an actual sentence of 21 years.
Dismissing his plea, a bench of justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh said, 'We are not inclined to exercise our power under Article 142. The petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the high court.'
The court had earlier granted interim bail to Yadav, who is the son of former member of Parliament DP Yadav. Senior advocate Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for Yadav, requested the court to continue his interim bail for a further period of six weeks as the period of bail expired on Tuesday. The court extended it by another four weeks, while observing that he was free to seek further orders from the high court.
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. The accused in the case are Vikas Yadav, his cousin Vishal and Pehelwan.
The decision of the top court in Pehelwan's case may come to the aid of VIkas and Vishal, who are set to complete the stipulated 25-year sentence in two years.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Indian Express
3 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Bombay High Court pulls up police for compelling doctors to reveal identity of minor girls seeking pregnancy termination
The Bombay High Court on Monday expressed displeasure with the Maharashtra Police for 'harassment' of doctors for compelling them to reveal the names and identity of the minor girls who desire to terminate their pregnancy, despite the Supreme Court directive that the same should not be insisted upon. A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela K Gokhale passed an order on city-based gynecologist seeking direction that he was free to undertake medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) of a co-petitioner minor girl without disclosing her name and identity to the police. The petitioner through advocate Meenaz Kakalia referred to the Supreme Court judgment of 2022 which 'recognized the medical practitioner's fear of prosecution under POCSO, thereby hindering access to safe and legal abortion.' The court noted that petitioner minor girl had consensual relationship with a boy known to her and became pregnant consequent to said relations and she and her parents are desirous of terminating her 13-week pregnancy. 'Hence, well within the restriction on the length of pregnancy, termination of which is permissible under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP), 1971 subject to the conditions laid down therein. Considering the future of the minor, it is natural that she and her parents are unwilling to reveal her identity,' the HC noted. Kakalia also argued that earlier, a coordinate bench of HC had in May last year allowed the gynaecologist to undertake MTP of another minor girl without disclosing her name and identity based on SC decision. The HC permitted the doctor to undertake MTP of the minor girl 'without being compelled to disclose her name and identity.' The court said that the forensic evidence of the foetus be collected and stored by the doctor only if the minor girl and her parents consent to the same, which transmitted to the Police Officer concerned in case any criminal prosecution is launched in future. 'We are quite surprised that despite the clear finding of the Supreme Court as well as of this court, repeatedly holding that in the facts of such cases, the identity of the minor girl need not be insisted upon to be revealed, the doctors concerned are compelled to approach this court for such permissions as the police insist upon the doctors to reveal the name and identity of the minor victims. 'This is nothing but harassment of the doctors as well as the minor victims. We thus, deem it appropriate that a copy of the Supreme Court's decision as aforesaid as well as the orders passed by this court be circulated to all the police stations in Maharashtra for their information and for necessary action,' the HC noted and disposed of the plea.


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
'Politicized prosecution': US calls Bolsonaro's trial violation of human right; sanctions Brazilian judge De Moraes for overseeing trial
Alexandre de Moraes, US President Donald Trump (AP) Diplomatic wires between Brazil and United States have been tense as US imposed sanctions on Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes on Wednesday,accusing him of a politically motivated trial against former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. 'De Moraes is responsible for an oppressive campaign of censorship, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights, and politicized prosecutions — including against former President Jair Bolsonaro,' said US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in a statement, reported AP. The sanctions were announced under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, a measure aimed at punishing individuals involved in human rights abuses and corruption. The action includes freezing any assets or property de Moraes may hold in the US. De Moraes is presiding over the criminal case against former Brazilian President Bolsonaro, who is accused of attempting to remain in power despite his 2022 electoral loss to current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The move follows earlier US visa restrictions announced on July 18 targeting Brazilian judicial officials, including de Moraes. Wednesday's order described Brazil's domestic policies and Bolsonaro's prosecution as an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' to US national security, foreign policy, and economy. Eduardo Bolsonaro, son of the former president and a prominent right-wing politician, celebrated the sanctions on social media platform X, calling them a 'historic milestone' and warning that 'abuses of authority now have global consequences.' Eduardo, who relocated to the US in March, is under investigation in Brazil for allegedly collaborating with US authorities to impose sanctions on Brazilian officials.


Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
SC finds driver who suddenly braked on highway primarily liable for 2017 accident, enhances compensation to victim
The Supreme Court said Tuesday that those driving on highways should give warning signals to vehicles behind them if they intend to stop midway, while holding a car driver, who had not done so, guilty of contributory negligence, which led to a motorcyclist losing his left leg in a road accident in Tamil Nadu in 2017. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar made the remarks while enhancing the compensation payable to S Mohammed Hakkim, who was a third-year Engineering student in Coimbatore at the time of the accident. The accident happened on January 7, 2017, when Hakkim was riding on a motorcycle with his friend on the pillion. A car that was ahead of them suddenly applied the brakes, and Hakkim's motorcycle crashed into the car and fell towards the right side of the road. A bus drove over him, and his left leg had to be amputated during treatment. The top court held that Hakkim had a role in the accident by not maintaining the necessary distance, but held that the 'root cause of the accident is the sudden brakes applied by the car driver.' 'The car insurer has taken the stand that the appellant had hit the moving car from behind and thus, the car driver is not liable. On the other hand, the car driver admitted in his evidence that he had suddenly applied the brakes as his wife was pregnant and she had a vomiting sensation. In our view, the concurrent finding that the appellant was definitely negligent in not maintaining a sufficient distance from the vehicle moving ahead and driving the motorcycle without a valid license is correct,' the SC said in its judgment. 'But at the same time, it cannot be ignored that the root cause of the accident is the sudden brakes applied by the car driver. The explanation given by the car driver for suddenly stopping his car in the middle of a highway is not a reasonable explanation from any angle. On a highway, high speed of vehicles is expected, and if a driver intends to stop his vehicle, he has a responsibility to give a warning or signal to other vehicles moving behind on the road. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the car driver had taken any such precaution,' the court said. Liability for negligence The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) fixed the compensation at Rs 91.62 lakh, but reduced it to Rs 73.29 lakh after attributing 20 per cent contributory negligence to Hakkim. MACT ordered the insurer of the bus to pay the amount, while exonerating the car insurer of all liabilities. On appeal, the Madras High Court held that since the accident occurred due to the car driver suddenly applying the brakes, he should also be made liable. The high court fixed the liability of the car driver, the bus driver, and Hakkim as 40 per cent, 30 per cent, and 30 per cent, respectively. The court also reduced the compensation payable to the motorcyclist from Rs 73.29 lakh to Rs 58.53 lakh along with interest. The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation, and directed that Hakkim be paid Rs. 91.39 lakh along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 'Since both the offending vehicles (car as well as the bus) were insured at the time of the accident, the liability for the negligence of the car driver and bus driver shall be borne by them, ie, respondent no. 3 (car insurer) to the extent of 50% and respondent no.1 (bus insurer) to the extent of 30%, respectively.' The court directed that the amount be paid to him within four weeks of the order.