The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea filed by Vikas Yadav—convicted in the high-profile Nitish Katara murder case—seeking temporary release from prison on furlough. Justice Ravinder Dudeja pronounced the order, upholding the decision of jail authorities dated October 29, 2025, which had rejected Yadav’s application.
Vikas Yadav, son of former Uttar Pradesh politician D.P. Yadav, is currently serving a 25-year sentence without remission for the 2002 kidnapping and murder of business executive Nitish Katara. The crime, which drew national attention, was reportedly motivated by Yadav’s opposition to Katara’s relationship with his sister, Bharti Yadav, allegedly due to caste differences.
Yadav’s cousin Vishal Yadav and their associate Sukhdev Yadav were also convicted in the case. Vishal received an identical 25-year sentence without remission, while Sukhdev was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
The Supreme Court, in its October 3, 2016 ruling, had upheld the convictions and imposed the enhanced sentence, taking note of the “honour killing” nature of the offence. The apex court observed that the crime was executed in a premeditated and brutal manner.
Vikas Yadav had approached the high court challenging the jail authorities’ refusal to grant him furlough—a provision under prison rules that allows long-term convicts temporary release for specific personal or family-related reasons. Furlough, unlike parole, is not linked to any emergency or exceptional circumstances but is considered a part of the prisoner’s rehabilitative rights.
In rejecting his plea, the court did not find sufficient grounds to interfere with the prison department’s decision, effectively ruling that Yadav would have to continue serving his sentence without temporary release.
Nitish Katara was abducted from a wedding in Ghaziabad on the intervening night of February 16–17, 2002, and subsequently murdered. The prosecution had argued that the killing was an “honour crime,” committed because of Katara’s romantic relationship with Bharti Yadav.
The case became emblematic of caste-based honour crimes and prompted significant legal and public discourse on the issue of reforming sentencing standards for such offences.
