The Supreme Court rebuked a man for threatening a woman lawyer with a gun during a court commission, calling his behavior disgraceful and warranting jail time. The Bench ordered him to surrender before the authorities by November 6.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has strongly reprimanded Nitin Bansal, an accused in a contempt case, for threatening a woman lawyer and Court Commissioner with a pistol during a court-ordered inspection. The top court observed that Bansal’s conduct warranted imprisonment and directed him to surrender before jail authorities on November 6, before his plea against the Delhi High Court’s one-month jail sentence can be heard.
The matter will next be taken up on November 11 by a Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and Joymalya Bagchi.
Justice Kant warned in court:
“He intimidated a lady officer of the Court and then misled the judiciary. He should be in jail.”
Supreme Court’s Observation
During the hearing, the Bench expressed strong disapproval of Bansal’s behavior, observing that he had shown “no repentance” for his actions.
Justice Surya Kant remarked,
“The Local Commissioner showed remarkable restraint. She could have filed a much more serious complaint.”
The Court noted that the incident occurred in the presence of police officials, suggesting the situation could have escalated dangerously.
“If they weren’t present, something untoward could have happened,”
Justice Kant said.
The Bench came down heavily on Bansal’s lack of remorse. Justice Kant observed:
“Despite committing such nonsense—for which the High Court should have taken even harsher action—he goes scot-free and still blames the Local Commissioner. Not one word of repentance in his petition! Why should we not enhance the sentence?”
Bansal’s counsel, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, argued that there was no intimidation, claiming that the “pistol” in question was merely an air gun or toy gun lying on a table. However, Justice Kant rejected this explanation outright.
“Just imagine—five police officers were there, and despite that, he created such a scene. Thank God the police were there; otherwise, he might have assaulted her.”
When Bansal’s counsel suggested that his client was ready to tender an unconditional apology, the Court refused to accept it.
Justice Kant stated:
“He must first go and surrender. Unless he goes to jail, we will not entertain anything. She has been extremely gracious. He misbehaved with a lady advocate and still shows no remorse.”
The Bench also criticized Bansal for misleading the High Court by falsely claiming the firearm was a toy gun. Justice Bagchi remarked that calling it a “toy gun” was a deliberate attempt to mislead the judiciary.
Background of the Case
The case arose from suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by the Delhi High Court in a matter involving the illegal disposal of 30,000 tons of industrial coal.
In May 2024, the Court restrained Bansal’s father from dealing with the coal stock. Later, a woman Local Commissioner was appointed to inspect the premises in Faridabad, accompanied by police officers.
According to her report, Bansal intimidated and obstructed her during the inspection, even placing a pistol on the table. The weapon, later confiscated by the police, was found to be a real firearm, not a toy, as Bansal claimed.
Delhi High Court Findings
The Delhi High Court concluded that Nitin Bansal had acted with the intent to mislead and obstruct the Court’s authority. His claim that the weapon was a toy gun was deemed “false and misleading.”
The Court held that Bansal’s apology was insincere and that his behavior undermined the dignity of the judiciary, noting that a Local Commissioner is an extension of the Court itself.
Case Title:
Nitin Bansal v. The State of Delhi
SLP (Crl) No. 17468/2025
READ ORDER