Threat to judge: SC stays remission in 2008 kidnap case

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered that the convicts shall not be released on remission until further orders of the court.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday restrained the Haryana government and the Punjab and Haryana High Court from releasing on remission the convicts sentenced to life imprisonment for a 2008 kidnapping for ransom, after the victim , now a serving judge in Delhi, complained of persistent and escalating threats from the convicts and their associates.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. (PTI)

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered that the convicts shall not be released on remission until further orders of the court. The bench also issued notices to the Union government and the governments of Haryana, Delhi and Gujarat on Snehil Sharma’s petition, which raised serious concerns about victim safety, witness protection and systemic gaps in parole and remission frameworks for heinous offences.

The case is unusual and striking. Sharma, who was kidnapped as a minor in March 2008, has since risen through the ranks of the justice system and is currently posted as a Judicial Magistrate First Class in Delhi. Seventeen years after the crime, he approached the Supreme Court not as an accused or a litigant, but as a victim seeking protection and arguing that the criminal justice system has failed to shield him and his family.

Appearing for Sharma, senior advocates Sidharth Luthra and Geeta Luthra urged the court to grant immediate police protection to him and his family, initiate a threat analysis report and enforce a court-monitored witness protection order. They also pressed for mandatory, victim-centric safeguards to govern parole and remission in cases involving grave crimes such as kidnapping for ransom.

The petition, filed through advocate Nitin Saluja, highlighted “post-offence criminal continuity” -- a sustained pattern of intimidation, extortion and threats continuing long after the trial concluded and convictions attained finality. It sought directions to the Union government to consider legislative measures addressing obstruction of justice and aggravated sentencing where convicts or their associates attempt to coerce victims into withdrawing opposition to parole or remission.

Sharma’s ordeal began on March 6, 2008, when he was kidnapped from Kurukshetra. Ten people were later arrested and convicted under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping for ransom and sentenced to life imprisonment by a sessions court in March 2013. The convictions were affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2017, and their appeals were later dismissed by the top court, giving finality to the verdicts.

Yet, according to Sharma, the conclusion of the trial did not mark the end of his suffering. The petition details multiple FIRs registered during the trial years for threats and intimidation, followed by further incidents even after conviction, including alleged firing during parole in 2021. The most recent spike in threats, Sharma submits, coincided with the consideration of premature release and remission applications filed by the convicts. The petition named Ashok Pehlwan, his brother Pawan Pehlwan, Sunny Gujjar and some other persons as people extending threats.

Since May, Sharma’s father, who resides in Kurukshetra, has been opposing the remission applications before the competent authorities in Haryana. The petition stated that as the proceedings advanced, intimidation escalated sharply. In September, extortion demands and threats were allegedly made at the father’s office, leading to the registration of an FIR in Kurukshetra. Around the same time, coordinated online intimidation campaigns and videos were allegedly circulated by named convicts and associates, maligning judicial appointments and pressuring the family to withdraw opposition to remission. The high court is expected to consider the remission plea on December 22.

Sharma has also complained of inaction by law enforcement despite lodging complaints in Delhi and Gujarat, where his brother is also a judicial officer. He contends that no threat analysis report has been prepared, no nodal officer appointed, no written protection plan put in place, and no preventive action initiated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), even though the threats are documented and recurring.

The petition further flagged what it describes as a structural failure in prison and remission rules, particularly in Haryana, which do not mandate hearing the victim or assessing victim-specific risks at the stages of parole, furlough or premature release. This omission, Sharma argued, leaves victims unheard in decisions that have a direct bearing on their life, personal security and dignity, in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The matter, the petition submitted, goes beyond an individual grievance and strikes at the heart of the administration of justice. Sharma has argued that targeted public videos and online campaigns accusing him of “purchasing” a judicial appointment amounted to an attempt to scandalise the courts and overawe lawful processes, engaging the Supreme Court’s constitutional duty to protect judicial independence and the safety of those who serve the system.