SC grants 4-week bail extension to Nitish Katara murder convict
The court also directed him to surrender after four weeks, saying that he will not be entitled to any further extension of bail on the ground of his mother's ailment. Further, the condition of his bail requiring him to remain confined in his house was modified and he is now allowed to accompany his mother to her hospital visits.
A bench of justices MM Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran, passed the order on an application filed by Yadav seeking extension of his bail granted by the top court on April 24. This is the fourth bail extension granted by the court. On past three occasions – May 8, May 19 and June 17, bail was extended to facilitate his mother's spinal operation that took place on May 25.
'We are inclined to extend the bail granted by four weeks making it clear that no further extension on medical ground will be provided. Any application for extension (of bail) can only be filed after surrender,' the bench said.
Senior advocate S Guru Krishna Kumar, appearing for Yadav, said the petitioner should not be barred from seeking extension of interim bail on other grounds. His bail was supposed to expire on July 1.
The application filed by Yadav pointed out that the Delhi high court order upholding his conviction in Nitish Katara case in 2015, had slapped a fine of ₹ 50 lakh against him. To arrange the same, Yadav stated in the application that he required to dispose immovable properties located in different states, which is a time-consuming and legally intricate process. He pointed out that he does not possess an Aadhaar card as he has remained in jail for past 23 years.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) Archana Pathak Dave appearing for the Delhi government informed the court that initially while granting bail, the court was told that his mother needs to be operated. Presently, she said, the operation is over and the petitioner's mother is undergoing physiotherapy.
Yadav stated that after undergoing operation, his mother developed serious post-operative neurological complications such as severe radiating pain, numbness in both lower limbs, weakness, and impaired mobility.
Krishna Kumar said, 'In these critical circumstances, the presence and support of the petitioner, being the elder son, is indispensable.'
Advocate Vrinda Bhandari appearing for Nilam Katara, mother of Nitish Katara, pointed out that no relaxation should be granted to Yadav as due to the petitioner's influence and power, the trial was shifted out of Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh to Delhi.
'So long as he is not committing any offence, what is the problem. If he violates the condition, the bail will be cancelled,' the bench observed, maintaining its order of relaxing the bail condition.
While granting him bail on April 24, the top court had directed Yadav to furnish bail bond of ₹ 1 lakh with a surety of like amount and imposed a condition asking him to remain confined to his home in Murad Nagar in Ghaziabad while reporting to the local police station during the period of bail.
In October 2016, the top court had upheld the conviction against Yadav and others in the 2002 Katara murder with a further direction to consider his remission on expiry of 25 years.
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.
In 2006, the top court shifted the trial of the case from Ghaziabad to Delhi on a petition moved by Nilam Katara. In July 2011, a Delhi court awarded life term to all the accused. This decision was upheld by the Delhi high court in 2015 and later by the Supreme Court in October 2016.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
16 minutes ago
- News18
'Cryptic Reasoning': SC Sets Aside HC Order On Bail To Murder Accused For Carrying Victim To Hospital
The High Court, however, allowed the said applications by way of the common impugned order of November 14, 2024, thereby enlarging the respondents on bail The Supreme Court has said the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order allowing bail to two persons in a murder case, by a cryptic reasoning and having noted they have carried the victim to the hospital after the incident, holding that the trial court has rightly noted the said aspect and declined to grant relief to them. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said the respondent-accused have been alleged to have committed the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. It may be a fact that they may have carried the injured victim, who later died, to the hospital but he was actually brought dead to the hospital. This fact will have to be considered de hors from the fact as to who actually had committed the offence in the first place in the instant case. 'In the circumstances, we find that the order of the High Court calls for interference and therefore, the same is set aside. Consequently, the order of the Sessions Court is restored," the bench said. By the impugned order, the High Court has set aside the order of the Trial Court declining to grant regular bail to the respondents herein and consequently, has allowed the petitions for bail. An FIR was registered on March 22, 2023 under Sections 302, 323, 148, 149 (Sections 148 and 149 deleted and Sections 34, 427, 120B added later on) of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Nangal, District Rupnagar. The said FIR was registered based on the statement given by the complainant-appellant Baljinder Singh alias Aman against accused No. 1 – Mandeep Singh alias Bhoda and accused No.2- Narinder Kumar alias Nindi. The appellant alleged that he received a telephonic call at about 11.30 p.m. to the effect that the respondents, accompanied by 7-8 other persons, were using filthy language against the appellant and trespassed onto his land by dismantling the barbed wire fencing on his property. He claimed that after receiving the said call, the appellant along with his driver Anil (deceased), Deepak Kumar and Chowkidar Bahadur Singh had gone to the appellant's land at Taraf Majri in his Land Cruiser vehicle when the respondents rammed their Fortuner car into the car of the appellant. When the appellant came out from his car, accused No. 1 hit the deceased with their car and threw him down. It was alleged that all the accused persons were armed with wooden sticks when they stepped out of their car. Accused No.1 gave a wooden stick blow on the head of the deceased whereas accused No.2 inflicted injuries to the deceased and other persons accompanying the appellant. The appellant witnessed the entire occurrence but fearing for his life, fled the scene and later discovered that the respondents took the deceased to the hospital where he was found to be dead. The respondents were arrested in connection with FIR on March 23, 2023 and were sent to judicial custody. The Inspector General (IG) Rupnagar Range, Rupnagar, on receipt of complaint from Dev Raj (father of accused No. 2) transferred the investigation in the present matter to Ms Darpan Ahluwalia, IPS, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. A charge sheet was submitted by the SHO, Police Station Nangal before the competent court on June 20, 2023. The JMIC, Rupnagar took cognizance and the matter was committed to Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar for trial and adjudication. Thereafter, a supplementary charge sheet was filed on October 09, 2023 based on subsequent investigation conducted by Assistant Superintendent of Police, Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar. On a petition filed by the respondents under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court dismissed it on July 16, 2024. However, an order was passed in interim restraining the trial court from proceeding further. This order remained in operation. The respondents filed separate bail applications before the trial court which came to be dismissed by orders on May 21, 2024 and May 24, 2024 respectively, finding that accused No. 1 is a habitual offender as eight other criminal cases have also been registered against him and keeping in view the gravity of the offences in this case and the heinous crime alleged to have been committed by them. The High Court, however, allowed the said applications by way of the common impugned order of November 14, 2024, thereby enlarging the respondents on bail. Being aggrieved, the appellant-complainant has preferred the instant appeal before this court. Challenging the order, the appellant contended that the impugned order is lacking in reasons for granting relief of bail to the respondents herein inasmuch as paragraph 12 of the impugned order only records the submissions in a cryptic manner, the reasoning given in paragraphs 13 and 14 and consequently, the relief of bail was granted to the respondents herein. He submitted that the reasons are erroneous in as they do not make merit a case for grant of bail. The counsel said the respondents have been, inter alia, alleged to have committed the offence under Section 302 IPC, the manner in which the offence was committed itself is gruesome and was planned and executed in a manner which reflects that there was a criminal conspiracy amongst the accused. The appellant said the respondents were in jail for a period of one year and eight months; the chargesheet had been filed and the supplementary chargesheet had also been filed. His counsel said the respondents-accused have been granted the relief of bail and on the other hand, there is a stay of trial. The said orders would require interference at the hands of this court inasmuch as the respondents herein have criminal antecedents and they are not entitled to the relief of bail having regard to the manner in which the deceased was put to death. The State counsel supported the case of the appellant-complainant herein and therefore, having regard to the merits of the case, appropriate orders may be made in these appeals. Defending the High Court's order, the respondents counsel said the fact the accused themselves carried the deceased to the hospital and saw to it that he was given treatment immediately showed that there was no criminal intent in their mind; they further submitted that the High Court has recorded in detail the submissions of the counsel for the respective parties and has come to a right conclusion and hence there is no merit in these appeals and the same may be dismissed. Allowing the appeal, the bench directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the Court of the Jurisdictional Magistrate or the concerned Police Station since they have been on bail pursuant to the impugned order. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 02, 2025, 21:12 IST News india 'Cryptic Reasoning': SC Sets Aside HC Order On Bail To Murder Accused For Carrying Victim To Hospital
Hindustan Times
21 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Shooter gets life sentence in RTI activist's 2018 murder case
After seven years of trial, a local court in Moradabad district sentenced shooter Vikas Chaudhary to life imprisonment in the 2018 murder case of RTI activist Qasim Saifi from Pakbara village. The verdict was pronounced by additional district and sessions judge-3 Anchal Lavania, who also imposed a fine of ₹ 20,000 on the convict. However, the court acquitted three other accused — former Pakbara village head Haroon Saifi, ex-Samajwadi Party leader Alka Dubey, and an aide named Kuldeep — citing lack of concrete evidence against them. For representation only (HT File Photo) Qasim Saifi, an RTI activist known for exposing irregularities in local development works, had gone missing on December 27, 2018, after leaving home for the tehsil office. His family lodged a missing person's complaint on December 29. The case was later reclassified as an abduction on January 3, 2019. After several days of investigation, police arrested shooter Vikas Chaudhary on January 9 from Durmanjpur village in Shamli district. Acting on the accused's confession, police recovered Qasim's decomposed body from a sugarcane field near his village. Further investigation led to the arrest of Alka Dubey and Kuldeep, while former village head Haroon Saifi surrendered in court after returning from Saudi Arabia. Police alleged that Haroon Saifi had orchestrated Qasim's murder through Alka Dubey, who then hired Vikas Chaudhary as the shooter. Qasim had reportedly used RTI applications to seek information on development projects in Pakbara, which had allegedly created friction between him and the local leadership. Following the arrests, all four accused were granted bail. However, the police later filed a chargesheet against them. The prosecution led by additional district government counsel Ranjeet Rathore argued for the strictest punishment. On Monday, the court convicted Vikas Chaudhary based on the available evidence and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a ₹ 20,000 fine. The remaining three accused were acquitted due to insufficient evidence. Former village head Haroon Saifi, speaking after the verdict, claimed that his name was maliciously included in the case due to personal enmity. 'At the time of Qasim's murder, I was in Saudi Arabia performing Umrah. I was targeted under pressure by some local rivals,' he said. However, Qasim's father, Sabir Hussain, expressed dissatisfaction with the court's decision. 'We believe Haroon Saifi was the mastermind behind my son's murder. Qasim had asked for RTI information on development work in Pakbara, which made him a target. Alka Dubey and Kuldeep were also involved. We will file an appeal in the high court,' he said. The murder had sparked massive outrage in Pakbara. On January 11, 2019, when Qasim's body was brought back, angry residents vandalized the local police station and blocked the highway demanding immediate arrest of the accused. Tensions were only eased after the arrest and surrender of the key suspects.
News18
34 minutes ago
- News18
Undressing Girl Despite Protest 'Attempt to Rape', Rules Allahabad High Court
Last Updated: The court found that it had been proved by the prosecution that the victim was forcibly kidnapped by the appellant with intention of marrying and having intercourse with her The Allahabad High Court on July 1, 2025, upheld the conviction of a man for attempting to rape a girl after forcibly abducting and detaining her for nearly 20 days, holding that the offence of attempt to rape is made out even if attempt to penetration does not occur clearly, as long as intent and overt acts are established. The Court distinguished the case from the Supreme Court's findings in Tarkeshwar Sahu vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2006), where the top court had set aside the conviction under Section 376/511 of the IPC (attempt to rape) recording a finding that the accused had neither undressed himself nor even asked the prosecutrix to undress so there was no question of penetration. The top court had said that 'in the absence of any attempt to penetrate, the conviction under Section 376/511 IPC is wholly illegal and unsustainable". The bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar emphasised that the ruling in the said case was not applicable to the case at hand as here the victim had stated not only in her statement under Section 164 CrPC before the magistrate but in evidence before the trial court also that the appellant had undressed her, however on her protest, he could not do intercourse. The single judge bench referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Pandharinath vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) where it was held that if the accused-appellant had removed the victim's clothes and he had not rebutted this statement of the prosecutrix in his examination-in-chief, it was definitely a case of attempt to rape. In every crime, there is first, the intention to commit, secondly, preparation to commit it, and thirdly, the attempt to commit it. If the third stage, that is 'the attempt' is successful, then the crime is complete. If the attempt fails, the crime is not complete, but the law punishes the person attempting the Act under Section 511 IPC, the high court said, referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Koppula Venkat Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004). The court found that in the present case, it had been proved by the prosecution that the victim was forcibly kidnapped by the appellant with intention of marrying and having intercourse with her. The appellant with the said motive kept her at the residence of his relative for about 20 days, where he not only outraged her modesty but also attempted rape by undressing her, however, he could not do so due to victim's protest. 'Nothing could be extracted from her (the victim) in cross-examination, which may create any doubt on her version or about the veracity of her evidence," the single judge bench noted. Further, since the FIR was lodged by the girl's mother on August 31, 2004, 21 days after the girl went missing, the appellant argued that the delay pointed to fabrication and that the incident was consensual. However, the court rejected both claims, stating that the delay had been explained and that such delays are not unusual in cases involving sexual assault due to societal stigma. Therefore, finding no illegality or infirmity in the trial court's order, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376/511 and 354 of the IPC.
