Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today came down on a man who allegedly threatened a woman lawyer appointed as Court Commissioner with a pistol during execution of the commission.

It asked him to surrender before jail authorities on November 6, before entertaining his prayer against the one month jail sentence imposed by the Delhi High Court.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter. It has been next listed on November 11.

During the hearing, the bench expressed serious displeasure at the petitioner-accused's conduct and opined that he deserved to be in jail. Justice Kant even said that the Local Commissioner showed magnanimity in the kind of complaint she filed, as she could have made a more serious complaint.

The judges also noted that the alleged conduct was exhibited by the petitioner in presence of police officials. If they were not there, something untoward (like physical assault) may have happened with the Local Commissioner.

Deprecating the conduct of the petitioner, and noting that he did not show repentance anywhere in his petition, Justice Kant said,

"Despite committing all this kind of nonsense, for which High Court should really have taken some really harsh action, he has been allowed to go so scot-free...he has not even a single word of repentance in the entire petition. He is still trying to accuse the Local Commissioner. Why this young lady would say [falsely]? [This person] telling lies in open court...found to have misled the Court and then he files an appeal! Why should we not enhance the sentence?"

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat appeared for the accused (petitioner-Nitin Bansal) and disputed the facts of the case. He submitted that there were many people present during the commission, including 5 police officials. As such, there was no question of intimidation. It was further highlighted that the police officials did not sign the Local Commissioner's report. The senior counsel also urged that the "pistol" was infact an "air gun/toy gun", which was not pulled out by the petitioner (as alleged by the Local Commissioner) but rather it was lying on a table since the outset.

In response to the submissions, Justice Kant said, "Just imagine. These 5 policemen were there, and despite that this man could create such a ruckus and scene there. Had she gone there bonafidely thinking that I am a Court officer, this man would have led to do something very serious. [Going by] the conduct he has exhibited! Thank God that police people were there. Otherwise this man could have physically assaulted her".

When Farasat submitted that the petitioner, who was present in Court, is willing to give an unconditional apology to the lady advocate, the judge retorted, "[he] must go and surrender. Unless he goes to jail, we are not going to entertain anything. This man, in entire SLP, does not mention a single word. He misbehaves with a lady lawyer. She could infact have lodged some better complaint against him. She has been very very magnanimous and graceful about his misconduct".

On Farasat's contention that the "pistol" was infact an "air gun", the bench noted that the petitioner tried to mislead the High Court by claiming that the pistol was an "air gun/toy gun". "he had the cheeks to even mislead Division bench of the High Court to say that he was using a toy gun...What is a toy gun? Why is he showing a toy gun to a Local Commissioner?", commented Justice Kant.

Justice Baghchi, on his part, added, "What do you mean by a 'slash' toy gun? That is intentional. It should not have been there. He should be in jail. Not only did he intimidate an officer of the Court, a lady officer who goes as a special officer, in the proceedings he tries to make an alternate affidavit 'air gun/toy gun'? That's noted by the judge".

"It was already on the table, he did not pull out any gun", replied Farasat. "That shows his dangerous nature", remarked Justice Bagchi.

Subsequently, Farasat submitted that the petitioner has a speech impediment and there was a possibility that the lady officer felt he was saying something which he wasn't.

Surprised, Justice Kant exclaimed, "With your experience Mr Farasat, what are you saying? She is absolutely honestly telling each and every word...his counsel told him about the court order and asked to comply, but [he refused to show records]...this is the respect he shows to his advocate!"

On a submission that the Commission was executed fully, the bench observed that it was only because of police intervention.

At last, the judge said, "Go surrender, then we will see". The order was dictated thus: "No ground to entertain the interim prayer. Let the petitioner first surrender before jail authorities on November 6".

Background

The case arose out of suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by the Delhi High Court after an order was passed by a single judge dealing with a plea for interim relief against Bansal's father. The case related to disposal of 30,000 tons of industrial coal.

In May last year, Bansal's father was restrained from dealing with 30,000 tons of industrial coal. Alleging contempt on his part, the petitioners then filed an application seeking appointment of local commissioner. A woman local commissioner was appointed, who visited the premises in Faridabad in July last year, along with police officials.

In her report, the LC said that during the execution, there was a complete non-cooperative attitude on behalf of Bansal, the contemnor. It was stated that attempts were made to intimidate and threaten the LC and that Bansal placed a pistol on the table in the midst of execution of the commission. The pistol was confiscated by the police as it was suspected that the same was unlicensed. Criminal proceedings were then initiated against Bansal.

In the contempt proceedings, the only plea raised by Bansal was that the alleged object used to threaten the local commissioner was a toy gun and not a real gun. However, later, on examination, the object was found to be a real gun and not a toy gun.

On this, the Court observed:

“Thus, clearly, the plea of the Contemnor/ Respondent was a false, misleading plea and was taken only to pull wool over the eyes of the Court, with the hope that the Court would never call for the physical gun itself.”

The Bench said that a Local Commissioner appointed by any Court is an extension of the Court itself, and that Bansal left no stone unturned in committing illegalities after illegalities.

“Yet, the Contemnor shows no remorse. The unconditional apology tendered by the Contemnor is nothing but a lip service. Thus, owing to the deliberate obstruction by the Contemnor, this Court does not find it appropriate to accept the apology tendered,” the Court said.

It added that the non-cooperative conduct of Bansal, coupled with the fact that the gun was placed on the table by him during the course of the proceedings being conducted by the Local Commissioner, demonstrated that he intended to obstruct the task entrusted to her by the Court.

Case Title: NITIN BANSAL Versus THE STATE OF DELHI, SLP(Crl) No. 17468/2025