Delhi High Court Jails Man for Threatening Commissioner with Gun, Brands "Toy Gun" Defense as Misleading

New Delhi – In a stern judgment reinforcing the sanctity of judicial proceedings, the Delhi High Court has sentenced a businessman, Nitin Bansal, to one month of simple imprisonment for criminal contempt. A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta found Bansal guilty of threatening a court-appointed Local Commissioner with a gun during an inspection, an act the court condemned as a "deliberate attempt with evil motive towards the interference in the administration of justice."

The court also imposed a ₹2,000 fine, with a default provision of an additional 15 days in jail. The judgment, dated October 29, 2025, firmly rejected Bansal’s defense that the weapon was a mere "toy gun," a plea the Bench described as "dishonest and contumacious." The case, titled Court on its own motion v Nitin Bansal , serves as a powerful reminder of the protections afforded to officers of the court and the severe consequences of obstructing their duties.

Background of the Contempt Action

The suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated following a disturbing report from a woman advocate appointed as a Local Commissioner by a Single Judge of the High Court. The commission was ordered in a commercial matter, O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 186/2024 , involving Bansal's father, Ashok Bansal. The original dispute pertained to an interim order restraining Ashok Bansal from dealing with 30,000 tons of industrial coal.

When allegations arose that the court's order was being flouted, the Single Judge appointed the Local Commissioner to visit the business premises in Faridabad and ascertain the facts on the ground.

According to the Commissioner’s report dated September 17, 2024, the execution of the commission on July 13, 2024, was met with hostility. Nitin Bansal was described as "extremely rude and uncooperative." The situation escalated dramatically when, as per the report, Bansal "went to the extent of taking out a weapon (pistol) and keeping it on the table in the office unit at the subject premises to threaten me and create coercion." The weapon was subsequently seized by police officials assisting the commission.

The "Toy Gun" Defense and its Demolition

In his defense, Nitin Bansal vehemently denied the allegations. He claimed the object was not a real firearm but a "toy gun" used to scare away stray animals. He contended that it was already on the office table before the Commissioner’s arrival and was noticed by mistake. He further submitted an unconditional apology, portraying himself as a law-abiding citizen with no criminal history who would not engage in such reckless conduct.

The Division Bench, however, was not persuaded by this explanation. To verify the claim, the court, in its order dated February 21, 2025, directed the police to produce the seized weapon. On May 28, 2025, the gun was presented in a sealed package. The court recorded its direct observation:

“The seal of the package containing the seized gun has been opened before the Court. The same has been seen by the Court. It is clear that the seized gun is not a toy gun but a real air gun.”

This physical verification proved fatal to Bansal's defense. The Bench concluded that his plea was not just inaccurate but a calculated falsehood intended to deceive the judiciary. “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 judgment stated.

Legal Analysis: Contempt and the Sanctity of Judicial Process

The court’s 21-page judgment provides a meticulous analysis of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines it as any act that "interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice."

The Bench emphasized that a Local Commissioner is not merely an agent but "an extension of the Court itself." Citing a coordinate bench decision in Court on its own Motion v. M/s Obsession Naaz & Ors. , the court underscored that interfering with the work of a Commissioner is a direct interference with the administration of justice.

The court found Bansal's actions to be a "clear threat" designed to prevent the Local Commissioner from executing her duties. The judgment observed:

“This Court is of the view that the non-cooperative conduct of the Contemnor, 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... sufficiently demonstrates that the Contemnor intended to obstruct the task entrusted to her by the Court.”

Furthermore, the unconditional apology tendered by Bansal was summarily rejected. The court, noting his persistent denials and false plea, found the apology to be disingenuous. "The unconditional apology tendered by the Contemnor is nothing but a lip service," the Bench remarked, adding that for an apology to be accepted, it must be "meaningful, genuine and bona fide."

The Sentence and its Implications

Finding Bansal’s conduct to be a clear case of criminal contempt, the court sentenced him under Section 12 of the Act. Initially, the police were directed to take him into custody from the courtroom itself. However, a subsequent plea was made on behalf of Bansal, citing a family wedding, requesting permission to surrender at a later date. The court acceded, directing him to voluntarily surrender to the Jail Superintendent on November 6, 2025.

This judgment sends an unequivocal message to litigants and the general public about the gravity of interfering with court-mandated processes. For legal practitioners, it reinforces the principle that court-appointed commissioners operate under the direct protection and authority of the court. Any attempt to intimidate, coerce, or obstruct them will not be tolerated and will attract stringent punitive action.

The court's decision to physically verify the evidence—the gun itself—highlights a proactive judicial approach to unearthing the truth, especially when faced with defenses that appear contrived. The ruling solidifies the legal position that obstructing an officer of the court is a direct assault on the majesty of the law, warranting imprisonment to uphold the integrity of the justice system.