Nitish Katara murder case: HC nixes Vishal Yadav’s plea seeking parole for four weeks

The HC noted that Vishal had been granted custody parole in 2015 but he did not avail it for reasons not specified or articulated.

“Even in 2018 when this Court while rejecting parole of the petitioner specifically noted that the petitioner would be granted custody parole for filing an SLP (Special Leave Petition) and an application in that regard could be moved, the opportunity granted was not availed on that stage as well, which also does not work to the advantage to the petitioner,” Justice Dayal said.

The court also said that the past conduct, including pre-trial, during investigation, during trial, and in custody stage, of both Vishal and Vikas pointed by the HC in its 2015 decision was “serious, exceptional, acute and grave, to say the least, and cannot be ignored or taken lightly for the purpose of considering this plea”.

On May 30, 2008, a trial court awarded life sentence to Vishal for murder and 10 years rigorous imprisonment for kidnapping.

On February 6, 2015, a division bench of the high court had enhanced the sentence awarded to Vishal Yadav to life imprisonment “which shall be 25 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission, and a fine of Rs. 15 Lakh”. It was further held that the sentence awarded under Sections 302/34 (murder) and 364/34 (kidnapping) of the IPC “shall run concurrently” while sentence under Sections 201/34 (causing disappearance of evidence) IPC shall run “consecutively to the other sentences”.

While observing that Vishal was not precluded from pursuing his remedy to file an SLP before the Supreme Court, “eight years after the decision that he wishes to assail”, the high court said, “Consistent refusal to accept custody parole for this purpose does not work to the advantage of the petitioner since it is not as if there is a denial in exercising a constitutional right, but rather to calibrate it and allow it along with safeguards which are necessary for securing life, liberty and protection of the victim and witnesses. The petitioner’s contention of denial of a constitutional right in context of the plea for parole, therefore, has to be appreciated, viewed, weighed, sifted and winnowed in this light and not viewed in isolation”.

Justice Dayal opined that it would “not be prudent” to assess Vishal’s plea as a simple segregated isolated plea for filing the SLP before the top court and “completely ignore and overlook” his past conduct which had been “well documented in previous orders/judgments” of the HC.

“The Court cannot turn a blind eye to these facts and circumstances. In light of the above discussion and assessment, the petition is dismissed,” the HC directed.

In 2021, Vishal had filed an application for parole before the Superintendent, Tihar Jail, on which no decision was taken. Vishal then approached the HC which, on October 26, 2021, disposed of his plea with directions to the State to decide the parole application within a period of four weeks. On November 26, 2021, the Competent Authority rejected the application for grant of parole and said that Vishal may file an SLP from jail itself availing free legal aid. Vishal had thereafter moved the HC against this order.

Vishal sought to be released on parole on the ground that since the records of the case are voluminous, running into 2,000 pages, his presence with his advocate is required for the preparation and finalisation of the SLP. He has undergone 18 years and four months of incarceration and was last released on parole for 10 days in May 2014 and since then eight years have elapsed, the plea said.

The parole plea was opposed by the police as well as by Nilam Katara, mother of Nitish Katara, on the ground that he had earlier sought a similar prayer and the court in 2015 had declined to release him on parole, granting only custody parole.