Man jailed for a month after brandishing pistol during Delhi HC ordered inspection

The court also observed that Nitin’s unconditional apology was insincere, noting that he showed no genuine remorse for his actions

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sentenced a man to one month’s imprisonment for contempt of court after he brandished a pistol during an inspection conducted by a court-appointed local commissioner.

The local commissioner stated that two individuals — Nitin Bansal and Sonu Gupta — were present at the site, and that Nitin allegedly became aggressive, pulled out a pistol and placed it on his office table, thereby obstructing the inspection. (Representational image)

A bench of justices Prathiba M Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta passed the order while hearing a suo motu criminal contempt case against the man, Nitin Bansal.

The proceedings stemmed from a petition seeking to restrain Nitin’s father, Ashok Bansal, from disposing of 30,000 tonnes of industrial coal material. In July last year, the high court had appointed a local commissioner to inspect the premises after the petitioner alleged that Ashok Bansal had violated the court’s May 31 order restraining him from dealing with the material.

However, in her report filed in September, the local commissioner stated that two individuals — Nitin Bansal and Sonu Gupta — were present at the site, and that Nitin allegedly became aggressive, pulled out a pistol and placed it on his office table, thereby obstructing the inspection.

In his response to the show cause notice, Nitin claimed that the pistol was an air gun used to scare away monkeys and stray dogs from the factory premises and that such a weapon did not require a licence under existing rules. The police, however, stated that the weapon was a real firearm.

Rejecting his defence, the court said Nitin’s explanation was “false and misleading,” aimed at “pulling the wool over the eyes of the court” in the hope that it would not demand production of the actual weapon.

In its 18-page judgment, the bench held that his conduct amounted to a clear attempt to intimidate the local commissioner and obstruct the execution of the commission. The court also observed that Nitin’s unconditional apology was insincere, noting that he showed no genuine remorse for his actions.

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

It added, “Such conduct on the part of the contemnor reflects a deliberate attempt with evil motive towards interference in the administration of justice, and therefore, the contemnor is liable to be punished for criminal contempt.”