New Delhi [India], May 2 : Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea of Vishal Yadav, convicted in the Nitish Katara murder case, seeking regular parole to file a special leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court against the order passed by the Delhi High Court.
Vishal was convicted in the case of the murder of Nitish Katara. His cousin Vikas Yadav along with others were also convicted in the same case. Nitish was murdered in Ghaziabad on February 17, 2002.
Justice sh Dayal on Tuesday dismissed the plea of Vishal Yadav after hearing the submissions of all the parties. Vishal Yadav had moved the High Court in March 2022. A detailed order is awaited.
The petitioner had sought an order directing the authorities to release the petitioner on regular parole for a period of four weeks to pursue the filing of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the Judgment delivered by the High Court in a Criminal Appeal against the judgment in a case titled "Vishal Yadav vs State Government of UP."
The FIR was registered at the police station Kavi Nagar under sections 302, 364, 201, and 34 of IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction and enhancement of sentences.
He also sought to set aside the order of November 26, 2021, passed by the competent authority rejecting regular parole to the petitioner.
Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that seeking parole inter alia on the ground that the petitioner wishes to file his SLP before the Supreme Court and as per the parole guidelines of 2010, it is one of the grounds on which parole can be granted, subject to having crossed the threshold of the certain conditions, which according to him are satisfied in the case of the petitioner.
Meanwhile, additional Standing Counsel (ASC), however, refuted this vehemently and stated that the opportunity for filing an SLP was granted even earlier and had been considered through two orders on May 30, 2014, and April 20, 2018, by this court.
Senior Counsel, who appeared for the complainant also refuted this plea by the petitioner also relying on prior orders of this court and that the petitioner had been sentenced without remission and the refusal of the remission itself is an indication that parole cannot be granted to the petitioner.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor