Bail granted on humanitarian grounds to attend ailing mother; SC directs AIIMS medical examination, tightens conditions and issues witness protection orders
New Delhi, April 24:
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday granted interim bail to Vikas Yadav, who is serving a 25-year sentence for the 2002 Nitish Katara murder, on humanitarian grounds till May 8, to allow him to attend to his critically ill mother.
A bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka also directed that Yadav’s mother be immediately admitted to AIIMS Delhi for a thorough two-day medical evaluation by a specially constituted board of doctors, with a report due to the court by May 7.
🏥 Conditions for Bail: Confinement, Monitoring, and Restrictions
The bench specified strict bail conditions:
- Yadav must furnish a ₹1 lakh bail bond with a surety of the same amount.
- He must reside strictly at his Raj Nagar residence in Ghaziabad.
- He can visit Yashoda Hospital, Ghaziabad, only if and when his mother is shifted there.
- He is barred from contacting any witnesses, including Neelam Katara, mother of the victim.
The court also directed Delhi and Uttarakhand police to provide adequate security to Neelam Katara and key prosecution witnesses.
⚖️ “Not a General Bail, Only for Medical Purpose”: SC Clarifies
“For the time being, we are considering whether he can be enlarged on bail so that he can meet his mother and ensure that proper treatment is extended to her,” said the bench.
The court emphasized that the bail was purely interim and humanitarian, based on the critical health condition of his mother, not related to any remission or regular bail plea.
🔍 Background: A Crime That Shocked the Nation
- In 2002, Nitish Katara, a young business executive, was abducted and murdered by Vikas Yadav and cousin Vishal Yadav, for his relationship with Bharti Yadav, Vikas’ sister.
- In 2008, the trial court found them guilty.
- The Supreme Court, in 2016, upheld the conviction and imposed a 25-year jail term without remission.
Yadav has served 23 years of his sentence so far and also has a pending plea challenging denial of remission benefits.
This ruling comes amid widespread debate on accountability, justice for high-profile crimes, and the balancing of humanitarian grounds in cases involving heinous offenses.