Nitish Katara murder case: Supreme Court grants 3 months furlough to convict Sukhdev Yadav
ANI
25 Jun 2025, 15:08 GMT+10
New Delhi [India], June 25 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted a furlough of three months to Sukhdev Yadav, alias Pehalwan, a convict in the 2002 Nitish Katara murder case.
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran noted that Yadav has undergone 20 years of uninterrupted incarceration without remission and granted him furlough.
The top court ordered that Yadav be produced before the trial court within seven days, which will put conditions of furlough. It also ordered that the safety of Neelam Katara be considered when releasing Yadav on furlough.
Yadav sought a furlough till the time the apex court decides his appeal seeking remission, as he has completed 20 years of sentence.
He had sought remission after serving a 20-year jail term without remission in the case.
The apex court, in its verdict delivered on February 6, 2015, sentenced Yadav to 'life imprisonment, which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission'.
Sukhdev Yadav, Vikas Yadav and his cousin Vishal were convicted and sentenced for their role in the kidnapping and killing of Katara.
They kidnapped Katara from a marriage party on the intervening night of February 16-17, 2002 and then killed him for his alleged affair with Vikas' sister Bharti Yadav.
Bharti was the daughter of Uttar Pradesh politician DP Yadav. (ANI)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Assam ‘pushed back' 88 alleged foreigners from Cachar to Bangladesh in a month, says CM
The Assam government has ' pushed back ' 88 alleged 'illegal infiltrators' to Bangladesh from Cachar district in one month, said Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Wednesday. Sarma claimed that among persons forced into Bangladesh, 59 are nationals of the country and 29 are Rohingya refugees, who were tracked and identified 'through special operations'. Cachar shares a 32-km-long border with Bangladesh. 'For far too long have illegal infiltrators gone scot free,' the Assam chief minister claimed in a social media post. 'We are tolerating it no more.' For far too long have illegal infiltrators gone scot free. WE ARE TOLERATING IT NO MORE. We have begun intensified operations against illegal infiltrators and in the last 1 month, in Cachar district alone, we have pushed back 88 Bangladeshis and Rohingyas back to Bangladesh. — Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) June 25, 2025 The Assam government has been forcing people over the border into Bangladesh since May. Many of those 'pushed' into the country claim they are Indian citizens. On Sunday, the state police detained 15 persons, including women and children, in Cachar. They were suspected to be from Bangladesh and have since been housed at a temporary detention facility in Silchar, reported India Today NE. Several of the detainees had been living in Gujarat's Surat but came to Assam in a bid to cross back to Bangladesh amid a heightened crackdown on undocumented migrants, the media outlet quoted an unidentified police officer as saying. On June 9, Sarma said that more than 330 persons who were declared to be foreigners by the state's Foreigners Tribunals have been 'pushed' back into Bangladesh. The Foreigners Tribunals in the state are quasi-judicial bodies that adjudicate on matters of citizenship. They have been accused of arbitrariness and bias, and declaring people foreigners on the basis of minor spelling mistakes, a lack of documents or lapses in memory. On May 20, Sarma said that the state was 'duty-bound to protect the interests" of Assam and ' expel all illegal immigrants from the state through any means and as per directions of [the] Supreme Court'. The chief minister appeared to be referring to the court's February 4 ruling that the state must deport persons who had been declared foreign nationals.
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
Supreme Court Backs Preventive Detention Of Cyber Criminals. What It Means
Amid growing cyber threats across the country, the Tamil Nadu government adopted a strong approach by detaining cybercriminals under preventive detention laws. The move received appreciation from the Supreme Court, which said such measures were necessary to tackle surging financial frauds, adding traditional criminal laws were not enough to deal with this new-age threat. A bench of justices Sandeep Mehta and Joymalya Bagchi said, "It is a good trend coming from the state to use preventive detention laws against cyber offenders. It is a very welcome approach," as per Live Law. What Are Preventive Detention Laws? Preventive detention laws permit authorities to hold people without conviction or trial if they are suspected of committing a crime or engaging in an action that could endanger public safety or national security. The purpose of these laws is to prevent potential crimes. Articles 22(3) to 22(7) of the Indian Constitution allow the government to detain an individual without trial if it believes they are a threat to national security or public order. The detained person is kept in police custody, for not more than three months, on the basis that they might commit a crime in the near future. What Did The Supreme Court Say? The Supreme Court pointed out that traditional laws, where police usually file an FIR, investigate, make arrests, and wait for a court trial, take time. During this delay, cybercriminals often escape and repeat their offences. This recurring crime was affecting the whole economy. The two-judge bench said, "Normal criminal laws are not proving successful against these offenders." It said that such strong measures were needed as cybercrimes were rising at an alarming rate in the country, making people emotionally and financially broken. What Happened In Tamil Nadu? Tamil Nadu detained Abhijeet Singh under the Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, also known as the Goonda Act. Singh allegedly duped a woman of Rs 84.5 lakh in a cyber fraud and invested over Rs 12 lakh in companies in his and his family's names, as per India Legal. The state government informed the court that the cybercrime was taking a toll on the economy. During the investigation, they found Rs 44,000 in cash, over 100 credit and debit cards, five mobile phones, and 27 bank accounts, out of which 17 were already used in similar frauds across the country.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court questions probe agencies' direct summons to lawyers
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 25, 2025) deprecated investigating agencies directly summoning lawyers in relation to professional advice or help provided to their clients, saying the practice will imperil the autonomy of the legal profession. 'What is at stake is the efficacy of the administration of justice and the capacity of lawyers to conscientiously, and more importantly, fearlessly discharge their professional duties… Permitting investigating agencies/police to directly summon defence counsel/advocates who advice parties in a given case would seriously undermine autonomy of legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to independence of administration of justice,' a Bench headed by Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed. The court framed two questions for it to consider, including whether the probe agencies could directly summon and question lawyers on the professional advice rendered to their clients. Even if the role of an individual was more than that of a lawyer, the court asked if agencies could issue summons or should there be some judicial oversight. The Bench has referred the issue to Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai for directions. It has also sought the assistance of Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association president Vipin Nair and Supreme Court Bar Association president and senior advocate Vikas Singh. The Bench noted that advocates have statutory protection to perform their job without fear as they act as the court's officers. 'Legal profession is an integral component of the process of administration of justice. Counsel engaged in legal practice have rights and privileges guaranteed because of the fact that they are legal professionals, and also due to statutory provisions,' the Bench remarked. The court was dealing with a plea of a Gujarat-based advocate who was summoned by the police after securing bail for his client in a loan dispute case. The High Court had stayed the summons. 'This is not just about one lawyer. It is about protecting the legal system. Such summons is prima facie untenable,' the court noted. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had recently issued summons to two senior advocates of the Supreme Court, Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal, in relation to their professional roles as lawyers in a case. The ED had later withdrawn the summons. The ED summons had created a furore within the legal community with the advocates' association, including SCAORA, urging the Chief Justice of India to take suo motu cognisance of the issue.
